Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Local Authorities: duty to consider measures to alleviate climate change and fuel poverty

'(1)   Every local authority shall, after having regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State, within twelve months of the passing of this Act consider how the measures specified in this section can assist the authority in the discharge of its functions relating to—
	(a)   reducing emissions of the greenhouse gases; and
	(b)   alleviating fuel poverty.
	(2)   The measures specified in this section are—
	(a)   energy efficiency;
	(b)   renewable energy;
	(c)   low carbon energy; and
	(d)   microgeneration.
	(3)   Every local authority may repeat that consideration at such intervals as it may determine.
	(4)   Every local authority may draw up, and thereafter revise as it sees fit, a report on measures to promote microgeneration.
	(5)   Every local authority may take measures that it sees fit and are within its powers to promote microgeneration.
	(6)   In this section "local authority" means a district council, a borough council, a London borough council, a county council or unitary authority.'.—[Gregory Barker.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Gregory Barker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to new clause 1, in line 5, leave out from 'gases' to end of line 6.
	New clause 2—Extension of section [local authorities: duty to consider measures to alleviate climate change and fuel poverty] to Scotland and Northern Ireland—
	'(1)   Section [Local authorities: duty to consider measures to alleviate climate change and fuel poverty] shall apply to local authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland if the relevant devolved assembly so resolves.
	(2)   In this section "relevant devolved assembly" means—
	(a)   in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Parliament;
	(b)   in relation to Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Assembly.'.
	Government new clause 4—Local authorities to have regard to information on energy measures in exercising functions.
	Amendment (a) to new clause 4, in line 16, leave out paragraph (d).
	Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8, clause 1, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment No. 14, in page 7, line 25 clause 11, leave out from 'England' to end of line 27.
	Amendment No. 21, in page 15, clause 23, leave out lines 29 and 30.
	Government amendment No. 53.
	Government amendment No. 55.
	Amendment No. 1, in page 16, line 13, clause 26, leave out 'and 16 to 18' and insert
	', 16 to 18 and [Local authorities: duty to consider measures to alleviate climate change and fuel poverty]'.

Gregory Barker: I am happy to say that we will not press the new clause. I am delighted that, following our lengthy deliberations and votes in Committee, the Government tabled new clause 4, after my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, tabled new clause 1, which has Liberal Democrat support. The Government have thought better of their previous view and tabled a sensible proposal that is similar to ours.
	I am especially delighted about the Government's decision because new clause 1 had significant support, not least from the Local Government Association, which wrote:
	"As an Association we are supporting and promoting local authority work to reduce CO 2 emissions through increased energy efficiency and wider use of renewable energy and microgeneration, and encouraging further action on fuel poverty . . . . The LGA is therefore supportive of your proposed amendment which will link action with national objectives through the pivotal role of local authorities while giving councils the flexibility to adopt the best local solutions for their communities."
	Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, chairman of the LGA, and of Conservative-controlled Kent county council, wrote that letter.
	There have been other general expressions of support, especially for the important part of the Bill dealing with the work of local authorities in driving forward its objectives. For example, the London borough of Bromley passed a resolution on 23 January to welcome the Bill's Second Reading, which happened on 11 November 2005. It noted the elements of the measure, supported it, resolved to inform the Government of the council's views and urged the Government to continue to support the Bill and all Members of Parliament to consider its provisions carefully. That is typical of wide support throughout the country.
	If we are honest, the Bill is relatively timid. It contains no great sweeping powers, regulatory impositions or financial implications, but it shows a clear direction, and the new clause is important in reasserting political leadership locally. It is vital to enable local authorities to implement the Bill in a way that is suitable to their communities. That is the nub of the new clause, and Government new clause 4 reflects it. It would provide for local authorities to be mindful of the regulations but also for local implementation with due regard to local factors.

Christopher Chope: What will the new clause enable local authorities to do that they cannot already do?

Gregory Barker: The most important thing is to prioritise climate change. We know from a poll conducted by the Energy Saving Trust of 300 local authorities throughout the UK that more than 90 per cent. perceived lack of leadership from central Government as a significant obstacle to taking a strategic approach to tackling climate change. More than 90 per cent. said that other issues had a higher priority in their council. The Energy Saving Trust believes that the inclusion of a "duty to consider" clause—new clause 1 is such a provision—would have a marked effect in changing local priorities. We are therefore establishing a clear direction and providing for a duty to consider. The new clause states that local authorities should have regard to
	"any guidance issued by the Secretary of State, within twelve months of the passing of this Act"
	and
	"how the measures specified in this section can assist the authority in the discharge of its functions relating to . . . reducing emissions . . . alleviating fuel poverty . . . energy efficiency . . . renewable energy . . . low carbon energy; and microgeneration."
	This is about putting those things on the agenda. It is pretty timid stuff, because it does not go further than that, but it is about reasserting political leadership and ensuring that these issues are deemed a priority among all the matters that busy local authorities have to contend with.
	We have a lot to get through today, and I greatly look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I am delighted to see the Bill back on the Floor of the House, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on steering it through the Standing Committee and getting it back here.

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) referred to the provisions as timid. I know what he means, in the sense that they try to introduce some modest steps, although I am bound to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), who introduced the Bill, that they will represent a giant step forward in terms of microgeneration and the climate change agenda.
	I have been reflecting on our lengthy discussions in Committee on the role of local authorities in tackling climate change and alleviating fuel poverty. During that interesting debate, it seemed to me that little of substance divided us. I certainly tried to strike the appropriate balance between central Government strategy and local authority responsibilities. I am keen that there should be no misunderstanding about the Government's commitment to supporting local councils on these issues, which is why I am introducing new clause 4.
	New clause 4 places an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish a report on ways in which local authorities can improve energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and alleviate fuel poverty. Local authorities would then have to have regard to the report within the exercise of their existing functions. The report will in effect be a joint effort between all interested Departments.
	As we heard in Committee, there are many examples of local authorities developing innovative policies to achieve real reductions in fuel poverty and greenhouse gas emissions. The work by Merton, Woking and my own borough of Croydon is well known in that regard. The report required by new clause 4 will help all local councils to learn from those exemplars. It will support them in developing their approaches to reducing carbon emissions and alleviating fuel poverty, giving them the flexibility to adopt the best local solutions for their communities. It has already been mentioned that the Local Government Association has indicated its broad support for a clause along these lines.

Eric Forth: If the Minister is so happy about what is already being done by some local authorities, why do we need this additional legislation? If local authorities are already able to do what is needed, and if they have the necessary powers to do so, why do we need yet again to legislate for something that is already being done?

Malcolm Wicks: That is a good question. As I said in Committee, we are trying to get the balance right—[Interruption.] Well, I said it was a good question. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) should not shake his head. Others might shake their heads and think that it was not a good question, but I am in a compassionate mood at this early hour, although I might not be later. I share the Committee's judgment that the measure would be helpful. We are simply proposing that a report be considered by local authorities. There is growing interest in these matters among local authorities, and many would welcome this lead from the Government.

Peter Ainsworth: I apologise to the House, because I shall have to leave shortly to attend a memorial service.
	I thank the Minister for the constructive way in which he has approached the Bill and the new clause. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on introducing the Bill, of which I am a sponsor. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who has worked tirelessly on it and on his new clauses, to make it a really good measure that will make a big difference in helping local authorities to address the problems of climate change and fuel poverty. I wish the Bill every success.

Malcolm Wicks: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for my hon. Friend's Bill. The different parties have worked hard on it, and it commands widespread support in the House.
	Government new clause 4 would not impose a new burden on local authorities, as it is framed in terms of existing powers and functions. I do not expect authorities to have to incur additional costs in having regard to the report, and the report would not impose any unfunded new burdens. In fact, it should help authorities to achieve more cost-effective ways of tackling climate change.

Christopher Chope: Why does the Minister's new clause let the Mayor of London off the hook by not including him, even though it would include the smallest parish council in the country?

Malcolm Wicks: The Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, Nicky Gavron, and the Greater London authority are taking the lead when it comes to climate change. The GLA is one of the exemplars in that regard; perhaps I should have mentioned it earlier. It is drawing heavily on the Woking experience in regard to its ambitions for Greater London.

Christopher Chope: The Greater London authority is specifically not included in the new clause.

Malcolm Wicks: Perhaps we could look at that. Given the powers that are there already, and given the wish expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst not to overburden local authorities with needless things, why do powers need to be in the Bill?
	The enforcement of building regulations, the support and advice that local authorities give local businesses, community groups and individuals, and the quality of the housing and regeneration projects that they sponsor, are all important levers that local authorities have under their control, as is the planning system, which we discussed in Committee. The urgent review of local authority plans being carried out by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will help us to establish whether local authorities are implementing planning policies in relation to renewable energy, as required by planning policy statement 22. I hope that hon. Members will support the new clause.

Philip Hollobone: On the question of planning powers, thousands of new houses are about to be built in Kettering. Were the local authority to insist that microgeneration measures be included in those development plans, only for that to be opposed by the applicant, and should the matter go to the Deputy Prime Minister on appeal, which way would the Government rule if the new clause had become part of the Bill?

Malcolm Wicks: That would be dealt with by the overall planning system. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has heard the hon. Gentleman's question. Perhaps she will find an ingenious way of noting the issue. That might be the best way of dealing with it.
	We have tabled amendments Nos. 53 and 55, which are consequential amendments that will be required if new clause 4 becomes part of the Bill. Amendment (a) to new clause 4, and amendments Nos. 2, 14 and 21 all seek to remove references to fuel poverty. I do not wish to spend too much time on that, but for the record, let me explain why alleviating fuel poverty deserves to remain a key purpose of the Bill.
	What we call fuel poverty—we can argue about the terminology—undoubtedly damages people's quality of life and imposes wider costs on the community. People who are struggling to afford to heat their homes might face difficult decisions between keeping warm and other basic necessities. They suffer an increased chance of ill health and find it more difficult to recover if they do fall ill. Fuel poverty imposes higher health costs and is a factor in the thousands of excess winter deaths each year, particularly among elderly people. It also contributes to social exclusion and affects children's education.

Jim Cunningham: As my hon. Friend probably knows, Coventry city council was probably one of the first local authorities to introduce energy conservation schemes. Is he satisfied with the level of grant available to authorities for such schemes?

Malcolm Wicks: I am satisfied with our development of measures such as the warm front programme, which has helped—I speak from memory—1 million households. There are equivalent programmes in Wales and Scotland. There is also the supply companies' obligation to take energy efficiency seriously, and there are the winter fuel payments, which are very popular with the elderly and arrive in December, which is important. I am confident about the armoury of measures that we are developing, but we probably need to do more.
	It may be said that we use jargon when we talk of fuel poverty, but this country has a poor record historically when it comes to protecting vulnerable elderly people in winter. We should all be ashamed of that. I believe that we are moving in the right direction, but regardless of any arguments about terminology and jargon, there is no denying that even during mild winters, in Bromley, Croydon, Merton or anywhere else, some of our eldersdie from cold-related conditions—respiratory conditions, for instance, or circulatory conditions such as heart disease. That is a real problem, and the House should not be in denial over its immensity. As I have said, I think that we are moving in the right direction, but as one who wrote a book about this subject in my youth, I feel strongly about it. I will not allow anyone to say that it is not a real issue, because it is.

Robert Smith: rose—

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is a real issue, so I will give way to him.

Robert Smith: The Minister is making a strong case on the importance of the issue. Has not this winter, with its very high fuel prices, shown that relying on fuel prices to end fuel poverty is not effective? Should we not instead think about the quality and energy efficiency of our buildings? Is that not a more robust, long-term way of ensuring that people can afford to heat their homes? In encouraging such action, the Bill will take us in the right direction. The Government may have relied too much on fuel prices as a means of tackling fuel poverty.

Malcolm Wicks: There are two major ways of tackling the problem. One involves income-maintenance measures such as pension credit and winter fuel payments, which are subjects for another debate. The other, which I consider more important, at least in the long term, involves improving the energy efficiency of our housing. We have introduced energy efficiency measures that have been applied both to new build and to existing stock, but we need to go further.
	I must confess that I have not looked at the English house condition survey for a couple of years—I have probably shocked my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning by admitting that it has not been part of my most recent bedtime reading—but when I have looked at that and similar data in the past, I have noted that there is still a great deal of housing that is not energy-efficient, lacking adequate insulation and good heating systems, and that there is a correlation between such housing and our poorest and most elderly people. Moreover, I think I am right in saying that it is the very elderly who are likely to live in the most inefficiently heated houses. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in physiological terms they are most at risk from cold conditions.

David Drew: The Minister has pointed out that the poorest and the oldest people tend to live in the oldest properties. Should we not ensure, through exhortation if not through legislation, that home improvement agencies always take account of the energy aspects of their work? Energy efficiency is important, but should they not consider other energy measures that could give those people a quality of life that, as the Minister says, they are denied at present?

Malcolm Wicks: Absolutely. I am not complacent—none of us is complacent—but I am encouraged to note that more housing associations and other organisations, statutory, voluntary and private, are taking account of such issues. I hope that our carbon building programme, which involves some £30 million over three years, will enable us to earmark some of the money for dealing with fuel poverty. Apart from the issue raised by my hon. Friend, there is the problem of vulnerable households that are off the grid and not connected to gas mains. We should think imaginatively about how they can be helped.

Nigel Evans: Energy-saving light bulbs are more expensive than more energy-consuming bulbs, and poorer people may find it a more attractive option in the short term to buy energy-consuming bulbs. Might there be a more dynamic way of ensuring that those people receive assistance so that they can buy energy-saving bulbs? Have the Government considered withdrawing energy-consuming bulbs from sale? If they were not available, every household would have to replace them with energy-saving bulbs.

Malcolm Wicks: That is not on our agenda, but I have heard the argument before and it will doubtless form part of an ongoing debate. Many agencies that deal with energy efficiency can provide vulnerable people with more efficient light bulbs. That is part of what is called, in the jargon, the eco-obligation on supply companies, which also involves insulation and draught-proofing.

James Duddridge: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: I was about to do so permanently by ending my speech, but I am happy to let the hon. Gentleman intervene.

James Duddridge: The Minister said that energy-efficient light bulbs were important, but he also said that they were not on the agenda. Why?

Malcolm Wicks: There is a great deal on our agenda, including our renewables strategy. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, our target is that 10 per cent. of our electricity should come from renewable sources by the end of the decade, and our aspiration is to double the amount by 2020. The issue of light bulbs has been put to us; no doubt it will be debated in future and the pros and cons will be weighed, but tackling climate change is an ongoing saga.

Michael Wills: I do not wish to make my hon. Friend remain on his feet a moment longer than necessary, but new clause 4 is relatively permissive. Is he confident that it will do enough to encourage local authorities to search restlessly for the best ways of tackling climate change in their areas, rather than settling for minimal incremental improvements?

Malcolm Wicks: We discussed in Committee whether we should impose more mandatory requirements on local authorities. A balance must be struck between strong central direction and the new localism of which we have heard, and I hope that we have managed to do that.
	Before I end my speech—

David Lepper: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Malcolm Wicks: May I finish my sentence first? It is quite interesting. It is a sentence that I think has at least some merit.

Eric Forth: You found one merit, then.

Malcolm Wicks: On the terrible day of judgment, there will be a weighing of speeches to determine whose had merit and whose did not. I am particularly proud of this sentence—if I can remember it. During our interesting discussion about the Mayor and the GLA, I argued that we did not need to include them in the new clause because they were such exemplars. Nevertheless, I am advised, as they say, that a wider review of GLA powers is being undertaken. What I did not know until recently is that its involvement is being considered as part of that review.

David Lepper: I congratulate the Minister on the finely honed observation with which he finished. Before he finally sits down, will he deal with the following point? He has drawn attention to the fact that the Minister for Housing and Planning is also on the Front Bench today. Will he join me in urging her to ask her Department to review its guidance to local authorities on regulations in conservation areas? In my constituency, people in older properties in conservation areas who wish to install renewable energy systems frequently come into conflict with the requirements that the planning system imposes on those who live in such areas.

Malcolm Wicks: That issue is being looked at, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has of course heard what my hon. Friend said.
	In conclusion, I point out that I oppose amendment (a) to new clause 4, and amendments Nos. 2, 14, 21 and 1.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) inadvertently gave the game away in his opening speech when he used phrases such as "direction of travel" and "prioritising climate change" in the context of local authorities' role, as envisaged in his new clause 1 and the Minister's new clause 4. It has already become apparent in our brief and so far friendly exchange—an opener to what will be a fascinating debate through today, and probably subsequent Fridays—that the risk is that this well-meaning Bill is neither more nor less than a gesture. I have a real problem with the concept that we in this House need endlessly to legislate to show what good people we are, what good intentions we have and how much we agree with this or that outside interest group; indeed, I find that rather offensive. Our job should be passing necessary and practical legislation that adds value to the statute book and the body politic, not endlessly loading the statute book with good thoughts and clever ideas. I am afraid that this Bill comes into the latter category.
	We are already struggling to see—typically, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) elicited this from the Minister—just what value the Bill adds. It has already been claimed that we need not worry—there will be no new burdens on local authorities as a result of these new clauses. However, the very first sentence of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, says:
	"Every local authority shall, after having regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State, within twelve months . . . consider how the measures . . . in this section can assist the authority".
	That immediately imposes a new burden on local authorities, and if it does not, it is not worth doing. So we begin to see, even in that first sentence, the potential for conflict. It is claimed that this is a relatively innocuous thing that everyone is doing anyway; indeed, the Minister gave examples of excellent local authorities that are already doing most of what is in the new clauses. So if we are not careful, we will either simply repeat what is already being done, or add new burdens to local authorities. It is incumbent on us to face such issues head on. If we are indeed asking our benighted local authorities to do yet more—albeit in the best of causes and with the best of motivations—we should know about it and acknowledge it. We need an absolutely open and honest answer to that question before we can sign up to new clause 1.
	New clause 1 goes on to specify the various valuable developments that it would doubtless bring about. In discussing later my amendment (a) to new clause 4, I hope to initiate a debate on the concept of fuel poverty, which this House has never had in a proper sense. As I have said many times in this House, I have serious doubts about that concept. In many ways, it is misleading nonsense and I want to explain why. Fuel poverty is a concept that everybody signs up to, saying—as the Minister said earlier—that is outrageous, disgraceful and awful and that we must deal with it. When I have finished discussing local authorities, I want to explore in a little more detail the claims made about fuel poverty, as opposed to poverty in general or any other specific poverty, and how we can best deal with it—an issue raised earlier by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith).
	For the moment, however, I want to concentrate on new clause 4, with which there are some problems. At the outset, it lays a new burden on the Secretary of State. It should not be imagined, as it often is when we are faced with such Bills, that we can ask more and more of Government Departments at zero cost. The Chancellor is boasting—is he not?—that we will see increased productivity and slimmer and more effective Government Departments, which will result in a saving to the taxpayer. At the same time, however, Bills such as this repeatedly come before the House that make further demands on Departments. These demands cannot be met at no cost, and if they can they are probably not worth meeting, or will not be met very well. At the outset of new clause 4, there is again this apparent conflict between the rival claims being made for the Bill. It either does something new, exciting and beneficial—if so, it will probably involve substantial additional cost—or it is simply a gesture to make us all feel better, in which case, it may well not.
	New clause 4 contains another of these mandatory requirements. Subsection (2) states:
	"Every local authority must, in exercising any of their functions, have regard to the most recently published energy measures report".
	So it is surely unavoidable that at least one official in each local authority will have to spend time having regard to such a report. Someone who could have been looking after old people, young people or people with disabilities will instead have to beaver away studying an energy measures report, doubtless having to reach a conclusion on what positive contribution their local authority can make to all the good things in the Bill.

Philip Hollobone: I mentioned earlier potential confusion in the planning system. As my right hon. Friend knows, district councils have extensive planning powers, and they may or may not have regard to encouraging microgeneration schemes in their plans. Once those plans are decided and approved by regional assemblies or the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, they are set in stone. However, an energy measures report could then come along suggesting a different tack. On what basis will appeals against the applications that planners will make be determined?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who anticipates what I will have to say later about potential conflicts between the different levels of local government mentioned in new clause 4. One of my amendments seeks to tease out the conflict that will exist between the desire for more microgeneration and, for example, the conservation areas that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (David Lepper) mentioned earlier. The new clause is shot through with potential conflicts. In many people's minds, macrogeneration, which involves wind turbines, and microgeneration—little windmills on people's houses—give rise to potential planning conflicts. That is to say nothing of the conflicts between the various planning authorities listed in new clause 4.
	My hon. Friend has made a very important point and I hope that, before we get anywhere near resolving whether we support the new clause, somebody somewhere will give us an answer to such questions. I look forward to that. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle or the Minister will seek to catch your eye again, Madam Deputy Speaker, to spell everything out for us, to put our worried minds at ease. I await that moment.

Gregory Barker: We know that my right hon. Friend's local authority does not support him in his view. We know also that the Local Government Association and Kent county council does not support him in his view. Has any local authority contacted him to ask him to raise these matters on its behalf?

Eric Forth: No. If authorities are so lacking in diligence not to do so, they must answer to their voters. I am serving the voters of my constituency by asking questions on their behalf. My view of local government is that councillors are elected representatives in their own right. They make their own decisions, which I honour and respect, as I respect them to honour and respect mine. That is a view to which I have held throughout my time in the House, and I will continue to maintain it.
	Shortly, I will ask some questions about what local authorities can or cannot do. That will apply to all local authorities.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) indicates a lack of reality about what happens within parish councils? How is a parish council to have ascertained the details of new clause 4, which was tabled only a few days ago? Often, parish councils do not have anyone to support them other than a part-time clerk.

Eric Forth: We will come on to parish councils shortly. We will want to examine what their role is supposed to be under the terms of new clause 4. We will go through each of the authorities in turn and ask that same question. We might even bring in the Mayor of London, who knows, or the Greater London Assembly. The mayor and the assembly are not mentioned but probably they should have been. That is something that the Minister was not able to explain to us. When he sums up and seeks to persuade us to support the new clause, perhaps he will be answering all these questions.
	I think that we have reached new clause 4(3). We have identified the fact that an official in each local authority will be studying the energy measures report and deciding what the local authority will do about it. That immediately raises the question of what local authorities will do to improve efficiency in the use of electricity, increase
	"the amount of electricity generated"
	by microgeneration, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or deal with so-called fuel poverty.
	It may be that the answer lies in what the Minister has already told us, and that is that there are some excellent local authorities that are doing some excellent work and demonstrating how some or all of the objectives that we are considering can be fulfilled. In that case, why do we need the new clause or the Bill? There is an apparent paradox in that it is all happening already, and a jolly good thing too—that brings in our old friend best practice. In the days when I had the privilege to serve in the previous Conservative Government, that was one of the buzz terms to which we were most attached. Best practice was supposed to be the answer to all problems. Maybe best practice would be the answer in this instance. Perhaps the local authority umbrella body that has been mentioned with such affection should be contributing by disseminating best practice. Instead of having Bills and other legislation, bureaucrats, bureaucracy, targets and all the other things that we in this place are becoming increasingly fond of, why cannot we have a simple and informal procedure out there in the real world—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. New clause 4 is quite lengthy. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman could find more relevant matters to which to address his remarks.

Eric Forth: I have plenty of ammunition, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am exploring some of the possibilities that I thought were germane to the new clause. I will be guided, as ever, by you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Do not worry, I will not run out of material. I have not yet moved on to fuel poverty, which will be the main thrust of my remarks. I am now going through the preliminaries. It is a bit of a warm up. It is important that we explore in some detail a new clause of such dimension. As my hon. Friend has said, it was brought forward so late in the day. It was a pleasant surprise to see it set out in the amendment paper, but it caught us all as a bit of a surprise. Perhaps you will forgive us, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being quite as well prepared as usual, and perhaps not being able to examine these matters in the detail that we might otherwise prefer. This is just a cockshy at it. It is an amateurish attempt at a late date to tease out some of the salient features. If I miss the target occasionally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will be as forgiving as ever.
	I move on to the partial answer to the question that I have raised. The new clause states:
	"'local authority measure'—
	the clause is trying to be helpful—
	"means any way in which a local authority can exercise any of their functions, including . . . taking any particular step in the exercise of a function, or . . . not exercising a particular power".
	Perhaps this begins to answer the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone). Perhaps there is a hint that local authorities should be looking the other way in planning terms when something of this sort is in the offing. Perhaps they should not be fulfilling the normal duties that we would expect of them if they are not to exercise a particular power.
	That is rather worrying to me because a potential conflict could arise between the desire for microgeneration and the objective of our planning regime to protect amenity, whether it be visual, noise or whatever. That will be the subject for a later debate under a later amendment. However, the issue is germane in considering the new clause.
	There is another unresolved question. What are we expecting local authorities to do in not exercising a particular power? Does that have any sinister connotations in an easement of the normal rigours of our planning regime and what we expect of it?

Christopher Chope: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, will he respond to my concern that the Secretary of State will be able to second guess local authorities under the new clause? It is only if he thinks that something will be one of the effects set out in subsection (3) that that can be a requirement upon a local authority to take account of the matter, even if it disagrees with the Secretary of State.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have not mentioned that. I will come on to potential conflicts under subsection (6). As ever, the Secretary of State will play a vital role. He is explicitly referred to in the new clause. He is given an explicitly leading role. That gives rise to the possibility of some conflict given the view that the Secretary of State may take as against the view that local authorities, at their different levels and with their different perspectives and priorities, might have. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said that he would not move the new clause in his name but he referred to it. He used the word "priority". He said that he wanted local authorities to give priority to climate change. That worries me.
	That raises the important question of where in the priorities of a local authority does my hon. Friend think that climate change should come as against, for example, the welfare of the elderly, the protection of young people, the improvement of the local environment and the management of traffic, social services and the plethora of local authority services that bear directly on the well-being and everyday lives of our constituents and our taxpayers?
	It sounds good to say that climate change should be given priority. No doubt the interest groups that seem to have ever more influence in our affairs in this place will be pleased when they hear someone saying—someone of the eminence of my hon. Friend—that we will ensure that local authorities give priority to climate change. That is priority over what? I want to hear what will suffer in terms of the priorities of local authorities if we allow climate change to go to the top, or near to the top, of the agenda. We cannot give something priority meaningfully without something else suffering. I want to hear much more about what will suffer if climate change, so-called, is given a much higher priority and a better role.

James Duddridge: I disagree with my right hon. Friend in relation to climate change and the priority that it is given. It should be given greater priority. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend that local authorities should decide on priority. Knowing that he is a great friend of America, does he recognise that while the American federal Government have certainly not done enough on climate change—I regret that they did not sign up to Kyoto—some federal states are quite innovative, such as California, in respect of the environment. Perhaps it would be better if we allowed local government to be genuinely independent and to prioritise so as to promote best practice to increase climate change and to give that the correct priority.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I support President Bush and his Administration 100 per cent. in not signing Kyoto, which I think is nonsense. I hope that we will have an opportunity on Third Reading, or on the second Bill due for consideration today, to explore at great length why Kyoto is both dangerous and damaging. None the less, I accept my hon. Friend's point and I agree that as much decision making as possible should be done at local level. However, if local authorities were to pay any attention to this Bill—I hope that they do not—and give climate change priority over other matters, they should tell local voters and taxpayers that that is what they are doing, and why. I do not want us to all pretend, in the usual cosy way on a Friday, that by saying climate change should be prioritised something magical will happen and nothing else will suffer. We should be up-front about this and explain to people exactly what the prioritisation of climate change would mean.
	New clause 4(5) contains our good old friend consultation—another favoured word in private Members' Bills and other legislation. It is usually designed to make people feel a little easier and more relaxed about what is suggested. If we have consultation, everybody will be involved and we can reach out, embrace, cuddle and hug all sorts of people, and all will be well. However, I would like to know a little more about who the "representatives of local government" will be. Will they be a random sample or will they be carefully selected—or does that phrase mean the body that has already been described as wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill?
	Even more intriguing is the reference in subsection (5)(b), whereby the Secretary of State must consult
	"such other persons (if any) . . . as he considers appropriate".
	That is a clever formulation, because we do not usually see "if any" included. Such legislation usually refers to such other persons as are deemed appropriate, relevant, knowledgeable, friendly or whatever it may be. The phrase "if any" suggests that the Secretary of State may not bother to consult anyone else at all, in which case it will be only local government that is consulted. If I had been able to see the new clause a little earlier, I might have suggested that we delete paragraph (b), if it meant that nobody consulted the single interest groups that have a perverse influence on our policy making now. We need to know a little more about what subsection (5)(a) and (b) mean before we rush to give the new clause our support.
	I now come to what is potentially the most difficult and complex area of the new clause, subsection (6), which states:
	"In this section, 'local authority' means any of the following"—
	not all, but "any"—
	"a county council . . . a county borough council . . . a district council . . . a London borough council . . . the Common Council of the City of London . . . the Council of the Isles of Scilly . . . a parish council"
	and even
	"a community council."
	That raises all sorts of interesting possibilities and potential conflicts. The first question is what would happen if, in that sea of excellence, some of those authorities disagreed with some of the others? It would be perfectly legitimate for them to do so. It is not, after all, unknown for district councils to be at odds with county councils or London boroughs to be at odds with the London Assembly or the Mayor, although the latter two are not mentioned here. It is not unusual for different levels of representative Government to take a different view. We know nothing of what will happen if some of those bodies take different views of the energy measure reports and their new responsibilities—which will, apparently, be seamless and costless.
	If we zero in on parish councils and community councils, we may ask where they will get the resources to fulfil the requirements laid on them by the new clause. It is one thing for county councils and county borough councils—and maybe even district councils—to do so. It appears that my borough council will have to spend much of its time dealing with such matters, although it has not told me how it will manage that; it is, of course, entirely a matter for the council itself. What really bothers me is whether we may expect parish councils and community councils to be able to fulfil the requirements and aspirations in the new clause in any meaningful way. If we do expect that, how will they do it, where will they get the resources, do they have the staff and the expertise, and is it any part of their remit, other than as provided by the new clause?

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that putting parish and community councils on a par with larger councils offends against the principle of proportionality, to which the Government pay lip service when talking about the importance of deregulation?

Eric Forth: I agree that there is that risk. Before we sign up to new clause 4(6)(g) and (h), we need to hear much more from the Minister about how a parish or community council can fulfil the requirements set out in any meaningful, efficacious or practical way. Otherwise, the new clause starts to look aspirational, or like gesture legislation, not meaningful legislation. It is time the House put its foot down and put a stop to such nonsense. I lived with it for five years in my service as a Member of the European Parliament, and I thought that I had seen the last of it when I came here to Westminster, but apparently not. Here we are, in the 21st century, still proposing gesture legislation, in a very European way—which is among my many objections to things European. I hope that this is not an example of gesture legislation, but I wait to be persuaded.

James Duddridge: I see no mention of unitary authorities in subsection (6), and I am conscious that 60,000 of my 72,000 constituents live under a unitary council. In my right hon. Friend's assessment, would unitary councils be covered by subsection (6)(h), which mentions community councils—a term with which I am not entirely familiar?

Eric Forth: I do not know. I can say that because it is not my new clause and I do not have to explain it. Indeed, I am beginning to have more and more severe doubts about it as time goes on. The first question that the Minister was unable to answer was about the role of the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor, and now we have a question about whether unitary authorities are subsumed under, or contained within, any of subsection (6)(a) to (h). I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to hear the Minister's answer to his question, along with all the questions that I have posed, before the House can dream of giving the new clause its support.

Christopher Chope: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that new clause 1, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) does not apparently intend to press, specifically refers to unitary authorities, although they are excluded from new clause 4?

Eric Forth: Funnily enough, that reassures me, because it shows that our Front Benchers are not totally in bed with the Government on this issue. That discrepancy reassures me that there is at least the slightest smidgen of difference between our Front Benchers and the Government, which makes me—as a traditionalist—feel rather comfortable. However, I shall not hold my breath waiting for much more evidence of that.
	I shall now conclude my preliminary observations on new clause 4, turn to my amendment (a) and initiate what I hope will be a vigorous and extensive debate on the concept of fuel poverty, which has bothered me for some time. It encompasses a wide variety of different concepts, which have not yet been addressed or dealt with. There is the concept of poverty itself, which is well known but not yet fully explored in terms of whether we mean absolute or relative poverty. There is also the role that fuel, as opposed to other essentials, plays in the household budget. There are historic comparisons to be made, with fuel prices past and present, and lifestyle choices. One of the issues that we must explore is whether the frequently made claims that people are fuel poor have anything to do with their lifestyles and their personal priorities.
	One of the reasons why I have sought to initiate a debate on fuel poverty, by seeking to remove the reference to it from the new clause and throughout the Bill, is that I am not sure that it has any place in a Bill on so-called climate change, emissions, microgeneration and all that. Fuel poverty is a completely different subject and should be covered by a different policy direction. In any case, I remain to be convinced that fuel poverty is a legitimate concept.
	When one looks at definitions of poverty, one comes across "want of necessities", "indispensable things", "wanting means of subsistence" and "minimum resources to sustain life". Those definitions are all unexceptional, and nobody would disagree with them. But when I began to think about what fits into those descriptions, I made a little list: accommodation, food, clothing, heating, perhaps transport—and then I got to alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and the like. I then began to wonder in what order one should list them in terms of the minimum resources to sustain life, subsistence or want of necessities. That immediately brings us to the time-honoured debate, which I do not think we have ever resolved—perhaps because we do not really want to confront it—about whether poverty is relative or absolute. In a very wealthy society, which we pride ourselves on being, if one defines poverty in relative terms, one gets some rather peculiar outcomes. People who enjoy things that could hardly be called necessities are suddenly regarded as being in some way poor. On the other hand, if one looks at poverty as an absolute, which would be my preference, it starts to take on a different context.
	If we are really talking about necessities—the minimum resources to sustain life—I originally put accommodation first, but then I thought that food should be first, because if people do not eat they do not survive, and we know that there are people who choose—many, but not all choose—to live on the streets. They can survive almost indefinitely without conventional accommodation, but they need food and clothing. The point that I am working towards is that fuel does not feature very highly in what people need to survive and maintain themselves. So why do we not talk about food poverty or clothing poverty? Why do we not talk about poverty in other essential aspects of life? Why are we obsessed with the concept of fuel poverty, as opposed to poverty in other aspects of life?

Brooks Newmark: I remain in awe of my right hon. Friend's forensic analysis, but I would like to help to connect the dots. He referred to the responsibilities of local government, and one of those is to look after the welfare of the elderly. In that respect, fuel poverty has to do with the relative amount that pensioners pay for fuel. In connection with the concerns that my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier, microgeneration, the insulation of housing, and the responsibilities of local government with regard to that, can help to alleviate fuel poverty.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I think—but I shall come to that subject later, because I shall talk about means-testing. My hon. Friend has fallen into the trap of talking about the elderly and fuel poverty. Most elderly people these days are perfectly capable of looking after themselves. They are well housed and have good incomes, because they have pensions and other assets. They get support. Therefore, simply to say that elderly people may have a problem with heating their homes is a questionable concept. Later I shall come to the individual choices that people, elderly or otherwise, make about their spending priorities within their households. I would want to know about those—or at least I think I would, because this takes us into means-testing which I shall explore in a moment. It takes us into asking legitimate questions of people who claim that they cannot afford their heating bill, about what else are they spending their money on, before we get too worried or rush to help them with a windmill on their roof. We must go through this argument one stage at a time.

Greg Clark: I have some sympathy with the point my right hon. Friend is making, but he rather overplays his hand. Surely he will accept that for elderly people and the disabled there are physical and medical reasons why they may need to spend more on heating than other groups in society.

Eric Forth: Of course there are, as there are for people with very young children. Of course there are groups in society that have different priorities and different needs, but that does not mean to say that we should bring out a blanket definition of something such as fuel poverty and then apply it indiscriminately across the board. Later, I shall come to regional considerations. Will we say that someone who has the joy of living on the Isle of Wight, for example—the southernmost part of our wonderful country—will have the same needs as someone living in the extreme north of Scotland? Of course they will not. Therefore I believe that we must start taking account of climatic conditions, whether they are affected by climate change or not, the Gulf Stream, prevailing winds or whatever it may be. Catch-all definitions such as fuel poverty, which we are dealing with here, will not do. We must have a better understanding of what people need, why they need it and what we should do to alleviate shortcomings.
	Now I shall go back to the point that I was making—asking why we do not talk about food poverty, clothing poverty or people's inability to pay for other aspects of their lives, and how essential we think those things are compared to fuel or heating. My hon. Friends have said that they think there is a serious problem of elderly people being unable to warm their homes. But what about elderly people being unable to eat or to clothe themselves properly?

Brooks Newmark: My right hon. Friend is digressing. We are talking about climate change. Fuel poverty relates to climate change and people keeping warm. I agree that food poverty is an issue, but it has no relevance to the Bill, which is why we are talking about fuel poverty in this context.

Eric Forth: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is for the Chair to determine what is relevant. The right hon. Gentleman has been going rather wide in his remarks. I am sure that with all that is in the new clause, he will now be able to address the Bill in an appropriate manner.

Eric Forth: I am addressing my amendment, which seeks to delete the term "fuel poverty" from the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is why I am giving some consideration to the concept. I am rather surprised atmy hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr.   Newmark), because I thought that the alleged worry was climate change and global warming. If we are going to have global warming, why on earth are we talking about people being unable to heat themselves? This is getting us into intriguing territory, and I want him to think about that before we get too excited about alleged climate change, alleged global warming and the alleged effects that it might have.

Brooks Newmark: The important thing is that if we can have, for example, windmills on people's roofs or insulation, that will lower the cost of fuel, thereby reducing fuel poverty.

Eric Forth: Who supplies the windmills is a question that we will come to later. I would digress if I followed that idea too far; even I have spotted that one. We will come back to who pays for the windmills in debates on later amendments.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the ironies of the new clause is that it could result in higher fuel bills because microgeneration is uneconomic? With higher fuel bills, fuel poverty would be increased rather than reduced.

Eric Forth: Again, we will come to that later—but to touch briefly on it now, it has not yet been demonstrated to me that solar panels or windmills necessarily have an acceptable pay-off period, or a yield that will give the results that are claimed for them. I have never been persuaded of that. If they did, presumably every roof in the country would already have solar panels and, within existing planning constraints, we would all have windmills, as leading members of our party apparently say they will have. I am not convinced that there is an acceptable pay-back in terms of the investment required in a windmill or a solar panel to give us an overall advantage in fuel terms.
	I have had a quick look at some household expenditure figures from 20 years ago and now to see where fuel and power fitted as a percentage of spending. I could go into a lot of detail but I am eager to reach some of the later debates, which will be much more substantial than this one. This is just a taster, after all; there is some meaty stuff to come later. Suffice it to say that the figures I have been given by the Library show that in the year 2003–04 the proportion of household expenditure spent on housing—rent, council tax and so on—was 17 per cent., on food and non-alcoholic drinks 16 per cent., on motoring 15 per cent., on leisure services 13 per cent., and on household goods 8 per cent., but for fuel and power it was 3 per cent. That suggests that we should be careful about analysing the proportion of household expenditure—

Greg Clark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those proportions would be very different for some of the groups of people that we have been talking about, specifically the disabled and the elderly?

Eric Forth: They might be—I concede that—but it is relevant to consider by how much. I return to my point about the spending choices and priorities in each household. There is a real difficulty, but a fascinating diversion or digression to be had, about means-testing or blanket support. A large part of me would say that if we want to help people in what is claimed to be fuel poverty, and there are households where, because of individual needs relating to health, location or whatever, people are forced to spend a disproportionately large part of their income on heating and fuel, there may be cause to help them. However, I very much doubt whether we would do that by putting a windmill on their roof, or even a solar panel, because in the middle of winter neither would help them. The help would probably have to be more direct—but I am not sure that that is what we are saying.

Greg Clark: I think that my right hon. Friend has made progress by accepting that, although he may not like the terminology, there is a concept of fuel poverty—that certain people whose needs require them to spend more on fuel than others suffer financially, because they do not have the means to make up the shortfall. He may not like the jargon, but the concept is accepted. The question is how it is addressed.

Eric Forth: Only partly. What about food poverty or clothing poverty? What if people find that they have to make difficult choices in their household budget, between buying clothes, paying their rent, heating their home or buying food? Why do we always concentrate on fuel and not the other things? That is my point. There is of course cause for us as a society to help needy people and people in difficulties, although we are entitled to ask them some fairly pertinent questions about what they do with their household income and how they prioritise before we rush to help them. But the question has never been answered; we go on and on about this thing called fuel poverty, yet we ignore everything else. It is at least theoretically possible that someone could end up living in a very warm house without enough to eat. What would we do about that? Why do not we answer that question, too?
	The idea—the concept—of fuel poverty is extremely dubious. I do not accept that, simply because it is raised in the context of a Bill such as this, people should try to connect it to climate change and windmills and lump them all together as though they were on a continuum. I do not see the connection or the validity.

Nick Hurd: As usual, my right hon. Friend is playing a robust role in testing the value added of proposed legislation, but surely subsection (3)(d) of new clause 4 merely recognises that a side benefit of promoting greater energy efficiency, which is of increased strategic importance to this country, will be that we shall be
	"reducing the number of households in which one or more persons are living in fuel poverty."
	It is not the main driver of the Bill but an important side benefit, and should be seen in that context.

Eric Forth: It might be—I do not know, nor do I think that it is as self-evident as my hon. Friend suggests, because it implies that we can make a direct, practical, on-the-ground connection between identifying those who are genuinely in so-called fuel poverty and the ability to help them directly by microgeneration. That may or may not be so in individual cases, but the application is not as general as the Bill and its supporters suggest.
	I remain to be convinced about the whole idea of fuel poverty. It needs to be explored in much more detail. I worry that, as ever with such things, we shall raise people's expectations and make them think that somehow the Bill contains ready solutions to problems. I, for one, do not see that. We require much more explanation. I have raised many questions—as have other Members—which I hope that the Minister will be able to answer, to persuade us that new clause 4 is worthy of our support.

Christopher Chope: To follow what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has just said about fuel poverty and his amendment, I have always been rather an enthusiast for eliminating fuel poverty and thought that the Government were, too. Indeed, I thought that Labour's 1997 manifesto included a commitment to that effect. In those days, the Government defined fuel poverty as occurring when a household had to spend more than 10 per cent. of its gross income on fuel. Since then, however, they realised that they would be unable to meet their political promises so they changed the definition of fuel poverty and watered it down to a much woollier concept. My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to what is now a meaningless concept; it sounds good, but what will it actually achieve in practice?
	About two or three years ago, I developed the idea—I should like to claim the credit for originating it—of describing the plight of pensioners whose council tax bills are so high that they take more than 10 per cent. of their annual income as pensioner council tax poverty. I took the view that it is unreasonable to expect old people, who obviously have heating costs and other bills and liabilities, to have to spend more than 10 per cent. of their gross income on council tax.
	However, I received no sympathy for that proposition from the Government. Indeed, they pooh-poohed the idea and seemed to think it perfectly reasonable that some people might have to pay out 20 per cent. of their gross income—as they do in my constituency—on council tax, which delivers few direct benefits for them and goes towards paying the costs of education. They may have grandchildren or great-grandchildren in education, but many of my constituents feel that the burden of council tax going towards the cost of education is at breaking point—indeed, beyond breaking point. Instead of paying such high council tax, they would much prefer to have the money in their pocket so that they could pay their fuel bills without needing to be dependent on subsidies from the Government.
	If we want efficient use of energy, we should allow the market to operate, as it has been doing recently. The cost of fuel has been rising and as a result, I suspect that many people are using less. Of course, one consequence of the market operating is that the cost of fuel is rising for elderly people and households such as I have described.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the long-term secular trend of fuel prices both in real and relative terms in households has gone down steadily over 20 or 30 years, or more, so although there may be an increase at present, if we accept the argument that there should be an additional effort to offset it, does not he think that if fuel prices were then to go down again, relatively, that would justify reducing that effort? Or does he believe that the market mechanism alone is to be relied on?

Christopher Chope: I believe in the market mechanism. One of the ironies about the figures on the proportion of household income spent on energy to which my right hon. Friend drew our attention is that the proportion is declining in richer households while it is rising for poorer households; for example, people living in park homes in my constituency who have high council tax bills and cannot install insulation. As the Minister knows, it is not easy to heat or insulate park homes efficiently. Such people have high fuel bills plus high council taxes. I should like something to be done to help them, but I do not think that adding to their burdens by pushing up the cost of electricity by requiring suppliers to buy microgenerated electricity, which is not economic to them, will help to lower fuel prices.

Brooks Newmark: I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the link between council tax and energy efficiency. Braintree council gives a £100 council tax rebate to those who insulate their houses. That local initiative encompasses energy efficiency and lowering council taxes.

Christopher Chope: That is an exemplary form of what we call localism. Each council is left to make its own decision on whether it is more important to take part in the gesture politics of dealing with global warming or whether it is better to give some practical help to the people who live in its area, by providing them with proper insulation.

Greg Clark: Does not the Bill meet precisely the objection that the Minister raises? Clause 1(2) requires:
	"the relevant persons and bodies shall have regard to . . . the desirability of alleviating fuel poverty".
	If my hon. Friend is right and such measures would increase the cost of fuel, that is precisely something that needs to be taken into account by the relevant persons, so that subsection deals with the problem either way.

Christopher Chope: I suppose that the subsection does so in a sense—my hon. Friend is right—but the trouble is that the two possibilities that he describes are contradictory. If the costs of microgeneration are uneconomic and local authorities are required to increase the amount of microgeneration even though it is uneconomic, that will push up the cost of energy, thereby exacerbating the problem of fuel poverty.

Greg Clark: Does that not, perhaps inadvertently, precisely meet the requirement? It might protect people from fuel poverty and from fashionable impositions in quite the way that my hon. Friend desires, so perhaps his alternative proposals are not necessary to meet his concerns.

Christopher Chope: I am addressing my remarks to new clause 4 and amendment (a), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Under new clause 4, as my hon. Friend will know, it is left to the opinion of the Secretary of State as to which of those approaches is better. Why not trust local authorities to make their own assessment of whether promoting a lot of microgeneration, where it is uneconomic, is preferable to reducing the fuel bills or increasing insulation in the houses of the poorest citizens of their locality? Surely we should leave that decision to the local authorities—indeed, they have the powers to do so at the moment—and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) has referred to the way in which his council exercises those powers very responsibly. Of course, the trouble is that the Government are dictating so much council activity from the centre that the discretion to do such worthwhile things is being reduced, because of the way in which the Government are manipulating council tax grants.

Brooks Newmark: The spirit of the Bill is intended to deal with climate change, and as I read it, the phrase "have regard" is not a compelling function, but merely tells people to consider what councils, such as Braintree, are doing and perhaps take on those examples in their own local communities and councils.

Christopher Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend, but nothing under present legislation stops Braintree council having regard to such things. Indeed, he has introduced into the debate an air of reality. If councils want, they can already do such things, and if they are not doing them, it can be an issue at the local elections. Perhaps councillors who want to do so will be elected at by-elections or district council elections. Of course, we hear that the Government want to defer the district council elections in 2007, but that is a side issue.
	If there are elections and the Government do not abolish them, it is possible for people who want their councils to become more involved in tackling climate change, global warming, fuel poverty and so on to press for just that: they can stand for election or promote candidates who want their local council to promote such policies. Surely that is what localism is all about, and it is why the Minister has been squeezed between saying on the one hand that new clause 4 is tremendously important and accepting on the other that it will not increase the burdens or responsibilities placed on local authorities one iota. It cannot work both ways.
	If new clause 4 would leave the law alone—it just engages in a bit of gesture politics—that offends against all the principles of deregulation that the Government propose. I have spent much of the past two weeks as a member of the Standing Committee that is considering the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which would, if implemented—perhaps you would be pleased with this, Madam Deputy Speaker—completely negate the purpose of any Friday sittings. Any such Bill could be pushed through by the Government without the need for any primary legislation. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Labour Members cheer because they think that the Executive are on their side. I am not so sure whether they would be cheering so much—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. However much any hon. Member might be pleased or displeased about that, it is not a matter that we need to discuss this morning.

Christopher Chope: I agree, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just explaining the Bill's context, and part 2 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill deals with the subject of regulatory burdens. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) if he wants to intervene.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just reminded the hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Christopher Chope: I am not discussing the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not intend to do so. I have spent the past two weeks discussing it in detail, but I hope that we will have the chance to discuss it further on Report. However, what I am discussing and what I want to address my remarks to is whether Government new clause 4 is consistent with the Government's avowed intent to reduce the burden of regulation on organisations and local authorities. My understanding is that one of the principles of good regulation that the Government avow is that legislation should not be duplicatory or exhortative and that it should add something new to the statute book that is necessary to achieve an objective. New clause 4 is basically window dressing; it has no substance in my view or in the Minister's view. If it had substance, he would have to concede that it would impose a new burden on local authorities, and he denies that it would do so. That is the case.

Eric Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend—with his vast experience of local government, but more particularly, in the context of the constituency that he has the honour of representing—will give us just a few observations on the possible conflicts that might arise between the approach of parish councils, district councils and county councils to new clause 4 and the possibility of differences of view on how those conflicts might be resolved.

Christopher Chope: I was certainly intending to do so, but I shall do it immediately, so that we have some continuity in the debate. I have already referred in an intervention to my concern that new clause 4 lacks proportionality, as it applies to very big councils and to very small ones. The Minister referred to the fact that the Greater London authority has not been included because there will be a review of GLA powers, but when one looks at new clause 4 in detail, one sees the phrase:
	"Every local authority must, in exercising any of their functions".
	If the GLA was included in new clause 4(6), when the GLA's functions were changed, the proposal would fit completely. I do not believe the Minister's explanation that, because the GLA's powers and functions will be reviewed, it should not be included in new clause 4.
	I find it ironic that the largest local authority is excluded, but the smallest parish council in the country is included. Parish councils are finding it increasingly difficult to get volunteers to serve on them, because of the burden on regulation. This is going to be another burden on them. They cannot afford to employ a parish clerk, but parish councillors will have to consider the report that emanates from Government and try to work out what the implications might be. For example, in my area, Burton parish council and Hurn parish council organise Christmas carol concerts on the green every year, and they may have to think about whether they should, in accordance with new clause 4, put up Christmas lights that will obviously burn energy and might have an adverse effect on the emission of greenhouses gases. [Interruption.] As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggests, they might consider investing in a windmill that could be used to provide the power for the lights during the Christmas period provided that there is enough wind blowing.

Nick Hurd: I have listened to my hon. Friend's argument about local councils and parish councils very carefully, and I understand it. Surely, however, the one requirement in new clause 4 that we have not discussed is the only real requirement. That is the requirement on central Government to think about and communicate how we get smarter about the energy that we produce and how we consume it. In the context of a Government who are widely considered to have underperformed on this issue, does he not welcome that requirement?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is on to a very good point. The Government have underperformed compared with what they said they would do. The comments by my hon. Friend and those on the Opposition Front Bench are apposite. The Government talk the talk, but do not walk the walk. They certainly do not produce the legislation.
	I fear, however, that my hon. Friend has been slightly   deluded by the impact that he thinks that new clause 4 will have. The only burden or responsibility that the new clause places on the Secretary of State is that he should produce an energy measures report and, from time to time, produce a revised energy measures report. That leaves things totally to his discretion. The new clauses says that an
	"'energy measures report' means a document containing information on local authority measures".
	They are not Government measures; we always see that the Government do not want to bind themselves with the same constraints that they want to impose on everybody else. For example, the principles of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill do not extend to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, although it is probably one of the biggest functionaries imposing regulation.
	Similarly, this new clause does not impose any regulations on Government Departments, but it imposes them on local authorities. It does not just leave it to local authorities to exercise their discretion and use their own knowledge as to whether they think greenhouse gas emissions are a life-and-death issue for our planet, but second-guesses what they might say. It refers to measures that not only "would" but
	"might in the opinion of the Secretary of State have any of the following effects".
	Why should an elected local council have to agree with the Secretary of State's opinion about something when it disagrees?

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the parameters of the energy measures report containing information on local authority measures. I take that point completely. However, may I illustrate the potential value of the provision? When I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what her view was on the Braintree initiative, I found out that she did not know anything about it. I found that extraordinary. Surely this exercise would be of value in bringing to the attention of central Government some of the innovation and good practice that is out there, not least because that might feed through eventually into the Treasury and the opportunity to stimulate the national strategy for energy efficiency.

Christopher Chope: Again, I understand my hon. Friend's point. I will not call him naive because he comes from a very distinguished political family, and he knows a lot about the issue. However, I had the privilege of being a Minister for a time, and all I can say is that we delude ourselves if we think that Ministers will find out about the good things that parish councils do just through the bureaucratic network. The way that they will find out about the good things that are going on in, for example, Braintree is if the Member of the constituency concerned raises the issue in the House, puts it to a Minister, tables an early-day motion or secures an Adjournment debate.

Eric Forth: May I suggest another couple of approaches? Any local authority that believes that it has a very good approach to these matters could either set up a consultancy organisation and sell their ideas or could go to the famous Local Government Association, which apparently supports the Bill enthusiastically, and disseminate good practice through that body. Local authorities can bypass central Government altogether. They can do their own thing at a local level. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that would be a much more efficacious approach?

Christopher Chope: I agree absolutely. That is what responsible local authorities will do. I do not agree with the Greater London authority and the Mayor about much, but we have already heard that they are now apparently so exemplary in the way that they perform these functions that the Government do not want to include them in the provisions of the new clause.
	Trust is one of the new themes of the Conservative party.

Eric Forth: Trust the people.

Christopher Chope: It has been a perennial theme that we should trust the people and the institutions to do what is best for their own local communities. Why do we not keep it local instead of getting the Secretary of State involved when he is not even prepared to impose the same burdens on Government Departments?
	When we come into the Palace, we sometimes see Government Car Service vehicles outside with their engines running. What sort of example does that set? It is an example of the Government saying one thing to everybody else, but doing something else. If some of the new office blocks in London that the Government are preparing for their own occupation met some of the standards that people aspire to in the context of the Bill, I would have more faith that the Government are intent on doing something themselves and for themselves rather than their just imposing burdens on local authorities.
	In the context of any new "requirement", one always has to ask what the sanction will be if local authorities do not have regard to the energy measures report. I re-read new clause 4 to try to find out what sanction there is, and I do not think there is one. What is the point of having a "requirement" if there is no sanction? That merely enables those who ignore Government circulars because they are so plentiful and they cannot cope with them to be able to get away with that. It also imposes an unnecessary burden on those who think that, just because something comes from the Government, they have to have regard to it. The fact that there is no sanction gives the lie to the suggestion that this is a significant move forward.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) described this as a timid Bill, but said that it showed a clear direction of travel. I am not sure that it even shows a clear direction of travel except in the sense that it is an exercise in cynicism on the part of the Government. I do not think that the Bill is necessary to enable local authorities to do what it suggests they will be able to do. They can do what is set out in the Bill already.
	I do not know whether the Minister will respond to these points, but the context of the debate is about objective universal truths. If there are universal truths about greenhouse gases, global warming and so on, why, in subsection (3) of new clause 4, does he not rely on those universal truths instead of including the expression
	"might in the opinion of the Secretary of State have any of the following effects"?
	That subsection is a recognition of the reality that we are in unknown territory in which there are arguments on both sides of the issue. In so far as new clause 4 does anything, it seems that it gives the Secretary of State the last say on which way the argument should go.
	I am sure that my hon. Friends will be familiar with The Spectator, and today's edition contains a superb article by a former distinguished Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lawson of Blaby. It shows that there is no universal truth in relation to the issue and that it is subjective. He makes some remarks about whether, for some people, we are talking about something that is tantamount to seeking a religion that they do not already have. I will not go down that road—certainly not without the Prime Minister in his place. I do not think that we are dealing with something objective.
	What I do not like and find rather distasteful about new clause 4 is the way in which the Secretary of State's opinion would be imposed on local authorities, even when they disagreed with it. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) intervened to ask what he was going to do about his local council, which does not buy into the science at all. I think that he thought that the provisions would force the council to buy into the science even if it did not agree with it, and perhaps that is the Government's intention, but that is the complete antithesis of local democracy.

Eric Forth: I am glad that my hon. Friend said that. Presumably the obvious answer is that it is up to local voters to express an opinion. If the matter becomes an important local issue, which I doubt it ever will, because people have got far more important things in their lives than windmills, the answer is that the local ballot box is the vehicle by which local government can decide, in its various different ways, whether to give any significant priority to the matters contained in new clause 4.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that he is as enthusiastic a supporter of the principles of localism as I am. We do not believe in just mouthing platitudes about localism; we would like it to be implemented in practice.
	On that final point, I find it extraordinary that the GLA will be excluded from the provisions when the local parish council down the road from where I live in my constituency be will required to deal with this new burden—if indeed it is a burden, and if it is not a burden, it is a complete waste of everybody's time.
	I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle thinks that he has won a great victory, because I am all in favour of the Opposition winning victories. If he thinks that new clause 4 is a great victory, far be it from me to disabuse him of that idea. From my perspective, new clause 4 could potentially have a very intrusive effect on local authority freedom. It offends against the principles of deregulation, which I thought that the Government signed up to.

James Duddridge: I will try to make my comments brief. I had hoped to speak in favour of the amendments, but, having listened to many of the points that have been made, I recognise that new clause 4 is fundamentally flawed. I had hoped to speak in support of it because I believe passionately that climate change is the biggest problem that we face. However, very little evidence has been brought forward in this debate on how to prioritise and allocate resources efficiently in relation to the problem. New clause 4 takes the direction of environmental policies away from local government to central Government. I do not support that move, because localism will create much greater diversity. It concerns me greatly that the Secretary of State will have greater powers, particularly under new clause 4(3), which appears to give him powers to compel local authorities to have regard to any report that he deems relevant. That is turning things on their head. We need diversity in local government.
	Unlike other hon. Members, I do not believe that fuel poverty has a place in the Bill. It is a useful term and engages with real problems. However, rather than highlighting an issue, it dilutes the more general issue of poverty overall and negates some other forms of poverty such as water poverty. The Government are fixated on fuel poverty and water poverty, rather than food poverty—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) raised that point. They are still deeply uncomfortable with energy and water requirements being provided by the private sector in their entirety. It is less defensible to attack the position on food security and food poverty, requirements that have been dealt with by the private sector efficiently for a much greater time.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) believes that new clause 4(5) is a good provision and provides a much greater case for approving the Bill. I am afraid that I share the views of   my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that it does not compel the Secretary of State to produce anything of substance. If an energy measures report was going to be useful, it would have been much better to see a detail compelling the Secretary of State to produce specific information in that report.
	I mentioned the issue of unitary councils in relation to new clause 4(6). I would appreciate it if the Minister dealt with that point. It may well be that a unitary council is part of a community council.

Malcolm Wicks: May I preface my remarks by saying that, at times, I have found that I am listening to what almost amounts to a private conversation on the Conservative Benches? As a Darwinian, I found that fascinating, despite my embarrassment. On the one hand, we have heard the points of view being put forward by the Front-Bench spokesman and some colleagues, representing a new political creature—the green Tory or cleaner and greener Tory—that has recently been discovered. Experts are not entirely clear about the location, but Notting Hill seems to be the leading hypothesis. That new political creature has been debating with—I am talking technically—a throwback: Bromley man.

Alan Whitehead: rose—

Malcolm Wicks: The DNA tests are still in the laboratories, but I think that Bromley man is genetically related to an earlier creature: Selsdon man, close to my constituency. The debate has been fascinating. As a generous person, I wish the Opposition well in trying to resolve matters in due course.

Greg Clark: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) first, not because he is my hon. Friend but because he stood up first.

Alan Whitehead: I thought it might be worth reminding my hon. Friend of Piltdown man, who I think was discovered in Kent and turned out to be a complete hoax and fraud.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we will now get back to the amendments and new clauses under debate.

Malcolm Wicks: I will not say any more about fuel poverty, because I hope that I covered that in my earlier remarks, but I remember, once upon a time in Bromley, discussing with elderly people and their representatives very real concerns about—to use the jargon—fuel poverty. There are people in Bromley who are too cold, just as there are in all our constituencies, and we need to help them. That is the serious point to make about this issue.
	A substantive point was raised, perfectly properly, about the definition of a unitary authority in relation to new clause 4(6). We have checked and I am advised that unitary authorities are included under district councils.

Gregory Barker: I am delighted to be called to respond to the debate, which I do not intend to delay. A good point was raised about parish councils and unitary councils and I can see the merit in that argument. I certainly do not want untoward burdens to be placed on that tier of local government. Nevertheless, I know that there is a great deal of support for measures to tackle the problems of climate change at the lowest level of local government. I have received numerous letters from people involved in parish councils who want us to be more robust in giving clear direction to local government at all levels.
	Let me come back to the point that I made in my opening speech about the survey of 300 local authorities, to which 92 per cent. responded. The authorities thought—Conservative Members have said this—that the issues covered by the measure fell under the remit of existing provisions on the statute book that provided powers to tackle climate change, but that the reason why they were not being prioritised—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to face the Chair while he makes his remarks?

Gregory Barker: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The existing powers were not being used because of a perceived lack of political direction from central Government, and the Bill will now clearly put a duty on the Secretary of State to provide that much-needed central direction. I thought that new clause 1 was a brief and correct measure, but the Minister has drafted his own interpretation. I am not entirely sure what the extra lines in new clause 4 add to new clause 1, but I bow to the knowledge of the civil service, which will have advised him as he drafted his measure. While acknowledging that we have won this battle, I willingly and happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Annual Report on Energy Production

'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State in the course of each calendar year to lay before Parliament a report on the amount of energy consumed in the previous calendar year in the United Kingdom which was produced by—
	(a)   those sources of energy mentioned in section 82(7) of the Energy Act 2004 (c. 20) (microgeneration);
	(b)   nuclear energy;
	(c)   fossil fuels.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 28, in clause 2, page 2, line 9, at end insert
	'and
	'(c)   the reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases in the United Kingdom during the three most recent years for which information is available which is attributable to—
	(i)   the use of those sources of energy mentioned in section 82(7) of the Energy Act 2004 (c. 20) (microgeneration);
	(ii)   nuclear energy.'.

Christopher Chope: I tabled new clause 3 because if we are to have a constructive debate about climate change and sustainable energy, which is what the Bill is all about, we need to ensure that the public are properly informed of the facts and options. At the moment, the extent to which energy consumption in this country is rising and the sources of that energy consumption are not generally known. New clause 3 thus refers specifically to energy consumption.
	In 1998, energy consumption in the United Kingdom was 155.8 million tonnes of oil equivalent. The "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2004", which is published by the Department of Trade and Industry, says that that was shared among the domestic sector, which consumed 46.1 million tonnes of oil equivalent, industry, which consumed 34.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent, transport, which consumed 53.7 million tonnes of oil equivalent, and other sectors, which consumed 21.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent. Solid fuels accounted for 5.3 million tonnes of oil equivalent. Petroleum accounted for 66 million tonnes of oil equivalent. Gas accounted for 55.9 million tonnes of oil equivalent, electricity for 27.1 million tonnes of oil equivalent and renewables for 0.9 million tonnes of oil equivalent. One does not have to be a mathematician to see that renewables, which are effectively the subject of today's debate, produced an extremely small proportion of the energy consumed.
	The latest figures for 2004—I will not cite the statistics for the intervening years—show that total energy consumption in the United Kingdom rose from 155.8 million tonnes of oil equivalent to 161 million tonnes of oil equivalent between 1998 and 2004. Energy consumption in the United Kingdom thus increased by 5.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent. Over that period, the amount of energy consumption by fuel changed dramatically. The amount for which solid fuels accounted dropped from 5.3 million to 3 million tonnes of oil equivalent, while the figure for petroleum increased from 66 million to 69.8 million tonnes of oil equivalent. The figure for gas increased slightly from 55.9 million to 56 million tonnes of oil equivalent, and the figure for electricity from 27.1 million to 29.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent—an increase of 2.1 million tonnes. However, the amount of energy that came from renewables fell from 0.9 million to 0.7 million tonnes of oil equivalent, although it is fair to say that 2.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent came from "heat sold" in 2004.
	I cite the statistics because they show that the mood music behind the Bill, which is an attempt to make people think that if we talk a lot about renewables, we will sort out the problems of climate change, is completely fallacious. Although there was an increase in energy consumption of 5.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent between 1998 and 2004, the amount of energy produced by renewables went down. We know from the Government's most optimistic figures that 10 per cent. of electricity should be produced by renewables by 2010, but that would be less than 3 million tonnes of oil equivalent, which is a lower figure than the total increase in energy consumption between 1998 and 2004. On even the Government's most optimistic view, renewables will not contribute to reducing the proportion of energy consumed that comes from other sources.
	There is a belief that global warming and climate change are the biggest issues that we face, and the Government's chief scientific adviser says that they are more important than terrorism. If they are of such gravity, it is important that we ensure that the proper figures are available so that a good public debate can take place.

Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend think that one of the   reasons why renewables have failed to make the breakthrough into viability and credibility is that the planning constraints, which have already been touched on in the debate—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. New clause 3 refers to the duty of the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament, rather than the merits of one kind of fuel over another.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for making that point.
	I make a plea to the Government to let the facts speak for themselves. If the facts are publicised, a lot of the mythology about the contribution that renewables can make to addressing climate change could be exposed for what it is.
	Another reason why I thought that it would be useful to produce the report to which new clause 3 refers was that it would point out the amount of energy that was produced by nuclear power in the previous calendar year. A lively nuclear debate is going on at the moment, and we are told that there will have to be less reliance on nuclear in the future. Indeed, unless new nuclear power stations are constructed, the amount of energy produced by nuclear will decline significantly. Of course, nuclear came under the definition of "electricity" in the statistics that I cited.
	The latest figures that I have on the proportion of electricity consumed in other countries that comes from nuclear are for 2002 and are contained in the energy White Paper. They show that the proportion of electricity from nuclear power in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries ranged from about 4 or 5 per cent. in the Netherlands and nothing in Poland, Portugal, Norway, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Australia and Austria to nearly 80 per cent. in France, almost 60 per cent. in Belgium, nearly 50 per cent. in Sweden, 30 per cent. in Finland, which is investing in new nuclear capacity, almost 30 per cent. in Germany, 25 per cent. in Japan and well over 20 per cent. in Spain.
	The amount of electricity from nuclear sources should be increased. The United Kingdom is pretty well down the league in terms of the amount of energy used that is produced from nuclear. If the amount of nuclear energy produced across the globe was doubled, that would deal with all the Kyoto targets at a stroke. Yet there seems to be almost a conspiracy among people who are taking decisions relating to energy policy to ignore or underrate the role of nuclear energy. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) want to intervene? I cannot hear what he is saying from a sedentary position.

Eric Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way to me?

Christopher Chope: Of course.

Eric Forth: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of this, but in my conversations with parliamentary colleagues, there is, happily, overwhelming support among Conservative MPs at least for the development of nuclear energy. I hope that that gives him some encouragement—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled that we are talking not about the merits of one kind of energy apropos of another, but about the duty to produce an annual report.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	In the annual report, which I hope the Government accept that they should produce, they would have to demonstrate the amount of energy consumed in the previous calendar year in the UK produced by nuclear energy. I hope that as part of that they would tell us what percentage of electricity consumed came from nuclear energy generated outside the UK. I used to represent Southampton, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) does now, where Pirelli produced the pipeline that transfers energy between France and the UK, and vice versa. That is an important means of ensuring that we obtain electricity for our grid.
	If the policy of the Government and the chief scientist is that global warming is the most catastrophic prospect that we face, and even greater than the threat posed by terrorism, we should welcome the chance to assess the electricity consumed in the previous year that emanated from nuclear energy. We should assess the energy generated within the UK and the nuclear energy that was generated in that great country where we have so many friends—France. That information would be useful for the public debate. Sometimes people are concerned only about their home patch, but if we are to be honest with ourselves and accept that the fuel balance and the amount of energy produced need to have a mixture from various sources, surely we should not run down our own nuclear generating capacity only to "impose a burden", in the eyes of the opponents of nuclear energy, on the people of France to produce more nuclear energy so that we can consume it and feel happy in our skins when we leave the television on standby at night.
	The issue of nuclear energy and where it comes from is important. The Prime Minister talks about having a big debate. Indeed, he referred to the subject in Prime Minister's questions this week. That big debate needs to be based on hard facts relating to actual consumption of energy in this country and the contribution made by the different methods of generation. When those figures are produced and, I hope, publicised, they will enable people to realise that a cosy talk about microgeneration cannot be a substitute for nuclear energy. The consequence of putting our heads in the sand about that will mean that we have to rely much more on fossil fuels, which is covered in proposed new paragraph (c).
	The new clause speaks for itself. If it is introduced, I hope that it will enable the Bill to be slightly more balanced, instead of relying on or talking about renewables and microgeneration. I am not against microgeneration. Everybody should have the freedom to generate things for themselves if they want to, as long as they comply with the planning conditions and do not impose a burden on their neighbours. To put my cards fairly and squarely on the table, however, I am much less sure about whether we should subsidise people to enter into microgenerative production of energy so that it can be sold at a subsidised rate to the national grid.
	Most of all, I am keen that we should have this big debate. Even today, the article in The Spectator by my noble Friend Lord Lawson of Blaby—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not had the opportunity to read the article, but the new clause is about the need for an annual report to be presented to Parliament. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks accordingly.

Christopher Chope: I think that the person who wrote the article on nuclear energy in The Times today would agree that we need the information to promote that important public debate.

James Duddridge: In the unlikely event that the excellent new clause is not accepted, will my hon. Friend press the Minister to provide the information to the House either as a result of the debate or via a written answer? Does my hon. Friend agree that if it is not accepted, he could table the question on a regular basis, asking for a comparative analysis from the Minister, which would be a welcome contribution to the debate?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I am not sure—perhaps the Minister will tell us—whether he would find the requirements in the new clause a major new burden on the Government, or whether the information that it requires them to produce is readily available. It is certainly not easy for people to get the information at the moment without going to various sources. I do not think that there is any information about the amount of energy consumed in the United Kingdom that emanates from nuclear energy generated in France.

Gregory Barker: As a relatively new boy I hesitate to give advice to a former Minister and senior colleague, but I am sure my hon. Friend is loth to trouble the legislature by requiring more things to be put on the statute book. Why does he simply not visit the Table Office with a written parliamentary question? I am sure that the Government will furnish him with an up-to-date answer—[Interruption.] Or go to the Library, indeed.

Christopher Chope: I congratulate my hon. Friend on framing the expression "Touché" in such polite terms. He is making exactly the same criticism that I made of new clause 1 and Government new clause 4, which do not achieve anything that cannot already be achieved by other means. I accept in the spirit in which it is intended his criticism that new clause 3 will not achieve anything that we cannot achieve in written parliamentary questions. He will know, however, that in business questions, the issue was raised as to whether or not our right to table as many ordinary written questions as possible will be curtailed by the Government, thus removing the liberty of representatives to defend their interest in a subject. In such circumstances, if one exhausted one's allocation of questions on a particular day or the Minister did not answer the question, as is often the case, one might not have the opportunity to ask more questions.

James Duddridge: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not hear the Minister say from a sedentary position that he would be delighted to provide that information, which I welcome. Will he press the Minister to confirm that that information will cover all the points that he has raised? As a new Member, I know that full answers to questions cannot always be provided, sometimes for a very good reason.

Christopher Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend. Had such information been readily accessible it would have been useful to the Prime Minister when he responded to questions this week. I am glad that, even though I did not hear the Minister's sedentary intervention, he is minded to accept the new clause. To ask a rhetorical question, if worthless legislation is to be included on the statute book what harm is there in adding another worthless provision to it?

Mark Lazarowicz: May I declare the support that I have received from the sustainable energy partnership and its members in introducing the Bill? May I also declare to the House that I am organising a seminar on sustainable energy, for which I expect to receive support from co-operative financial services?
	The intervention of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) has pre-empted most of my contribution. When we debated the last group of amendments, the criticism was that the measure went too far. New clause 3, however, goes far beyond the scope of the Bill, which is an ambitious measure that became more ambitious in Committee. However, one has to draw the line somewhere. With respect to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), his proposals are a contribution to the energy debate. I accept that that is a necessary debate, but the difficulty that he and his hon. Friends had in sticking to the subject shows that this is not the right time to hold it. I urge him to take up the invitation extended by his hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle to table questions. Indeed, he could submit a request for an Adjournment debate. I am sure that he wants to take a constructive approach, so as the Bill's promoter I urge him strongly to withdraw the motion. If he is not willing to do so, I urge the House to vote against the new clause.

Christopher Chope: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was saying that my new clause was innocuous. If so, and given the fact that, by definition, it falls within the scope of the Bill otherwise it would not have been selected for debate, why will he not accept it?

Mark Lazarowicz: As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said, we should not burden the legislative body with provisions that will not achieve any objective. The hon. Member for Christchurch said that his new clause will not achieve anything, so I urge him to withdraw the motion. If he does not do so, I will urge the House to oppose it.

Eric Forth: I am rather torn. On the one hand, much of the information required under new clause 3 is already available but, on the other, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is seeking additional information. We must probe the measure to establish its efficacy and how much value it adds to the debate. No one in the House would shrink from the need for an open and frank debate about the relative values of different sources of energy, not least nuclear energy, which I strongly support, as do most of my parliamentary colleagues, as far as my conversations reveal. When my hon. Friend set out the information that he required he gave the game away by revealing to the House that he had elicited a considerable amount of that information from existing sources.
	That illustrates the dilemma that we face in such cases, as information is already available in the Library and in responses to parliamentary questions. I gather that there are things called websites that purport to give information, but the reason why colleagues should rely on them when they are strongly advised not to believe a word that they read in the newspapers eludes me. That discussion, however, is for another day. Given the plethora of information sources, it is ironic that my hon. Friend should seek to add his new clause to the Bill. There is an echo of our earlier debate, because we need to prevent the Bill from being burdened with additional provisions, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) has just said but, equally, we have just agreed without a vote a substantial new clause tabled by the Minister. We will always be in two minds about such matters.
	My hon. Friend wishes to place a new duty on the Secretary of State. To reiterate what I said earlier, the word "duty" always gives me pause for thought, because I am reluctant to add to the burdens even of these Secretaries of State, as that can distract them from other important matters and, if we are not careful, increase the burden on the taxpayer, who always pays for the resources needed to discharge those duties. We should not be under any illusion—it is not the Secretary of State who undertakes these things but officials acting on his behalf. We are therefore talking about departmental resources and priorities, and we must ask ourselves whether the additional information that my hon. Friend is seeking to elicit and lay before Parliament will be beneficial. A new duty will be imposed on the Secretary of State, and information will be required every calendar year. I am not sure whether annual reports are of much value in helping us to deal with the great issues of climate change, greenhouses gases, emissions and so on. May I suggest to my hon. Friend in a friendly spirit that it is long-term trends that are important, not annual changes? In the 1970s, the experts told us that we were definitely entering another ice age, but they soon had to reverse that opinion, which demonstrates that an annual snapshot of emissions, the climate and so on is arguably of little value.

Mark Lazarowicz: The right hon. Gentleman and I might have been of the same mind if the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) had tabled a new clause calling for a review every millennium. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that would be more appropriate?

Eric Forth: That sounds like a very attractive proposition. Perhaps we could consider it through further amendments to the Bill. I am happy to say, as I am sure Madam Deputy Speaker will confirm, that if by some mischance we do not finish our deliberations on the Bill by the end of today, there will be many opportunities for further amendments to be made. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. He is helping us suggest amendments to his own Bill, upon which we can deliberate on other Fridays—Fridays, plural.
	The point that I am making relates strictly to the wording of new clause 3, "each calendar year". I am sorry to say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, but I am querying the efficacy, benefit and value added of annual reports on movements in the huge   issues that confront us, of the kind that new clause 3 covers. The amount of energy consumed could be affected by alterations in climate. If we had a very cold winter—that seems virtually impossible, given the claims about global warming, but let us imagine that we had the odd cold winter or a drop in temperature, rather than the much promised global warming, to which I look forward very much, because it will benefit many parts of the world and many aspects of our lives—given the variations in climate, the consumption of energy in the United Kingdom would vary from one year to another. What conclusions are we expected to draw from that? Will we panic, change our policies and change direction as a result of this or that movement, on a yearly basis?
	To answer the rather tongue in cheek but helpful suggestion from the promoter of the Bill, triennial or quinquennial reports might be more relevant, in order that we could begin to see the development of trends in energy matters, as related to climate matters. That would be of more value. I want to look again at the Bill in the context of the hon. Gentleman's helpful suggestion, to see whether we can work up some further amendments that would reflect that.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that "built to last" is an important principle, and that for something to be built to last, it needs foundations? The building of those foundations may be momentary, but may be seen as significant in the context of history.

Eric Forth: Such matters must be weighed up. We are discussing whether an annual approach is the most efficacious, and I am raising some doubts about that. When my hon. Friend sums up the debate, he will no doubt seek to change my mind.
	When we go on to examine the detail of the measure that my hon. Friend outlined, other questions must be asked. Given that it calls for a yearly report to be laid before Parliament, what is Parliament expected to do as a result? I hope he is not suggesting that we get into the ghastly provinces of early-day motions and rather feeble Adjournment debates, where Members of Parliament unburden themselves, usually unheard by most people and listened to by few. Such a response to the proposed annual report would have no effect whatever.
	I am delighted that the Minister is conducting a review of energy requirements and I look forward to its outcome. I support what the Prime Minister said on Wednesday about energy and energy supplies, and the spirit in which he said it. If it meant what I thought it meant, he will have my support on that matter.
	How is Parliament supposed to react to a report on energy consumption every year? Not much at all, I hope. It would make no sense for us to react on an annual basis to movements one way or another in the amount of energy consumed in the United Kingdom year by year.
	Next we come to a more interesting part of my hon. Friend's new clause. The report will seek to identify—I choose my words carefully—
	"those sources of energy mentioned in section 82(7) of the Energy Act 2004 (c. 20) (microgeneration)".
	I hope my hon. Friend will refer to this when he sums up. I wonder whether we have any certainty or confidence in our ability to identify, in a useful and usable way, the production of energy by, for example, windmills, solar panels, tide, biomass or any of the other trendy means to which people are so attracted.
	I cannot conceive how, in a meaningful way and with figures on which we could rely year by year, even the Government, with all the resources at their disposal, could identify the production of energy by those various means. Surveys could no doubt be done and questions asked, but would we get real figures, particularly for domestic installations of little windmills, solar panels and the like? I concede that tidal installations would be a much easier proposition, but I question whether we could get real, reliable figures at the micro level of detail. I hope to be reassured.
	Nuclear energy, on the face of it, looks much easier, except for the fact that my hon. Friend mentioned—the interconnector. When we come to the import of energy, I pose another question to which I do not know the answer. It is always risky to ask a question to which one does not know the answer, but since we are among friends, having a private conversation in the Chamber on a Friday, I feel a little freer to ask such a question. In the context of the import of energy and the interconnector, do we know the sources of that energy? If electricity comes flowing across from our friends in France, do we know whether is it generated by their nuclear installations or from other sources, perhaps fossil? We would certainly want to know that, in the context of the new clause and the Bill, but I am not sure that we could be confident of that.
	The same applies to fossil fuels. Again, it is one thing to seek to identify the amount of energy consumed overall, but is it possible to identify energy consumed in terms of its production from different types of fossil fuel, as opposed to nuclear, whether imported or not, and microgenerating sources, and what value would that have?

Christopher Chope: If the Government have set a target of 10 per cent. of electricity from microgeneration, that suggests that they must have some source for the figures.

Eric Forth: One would think so, but just saying it does not make it so. It may be possible to identify the total amount of energy consumed, but my hon. Friend's new clause refers to "sources of energy", plural, which I assume means our old friends windmills, solar panels and so on. Is such a breakdown into meaningful detail possible? I am sure we all want to know whether windmills are a viable source of energy. As I suggested earlier, regional and geographical variations come into play, as they do with solar panels and various other renewable sources of energy.
	There is a debate, rightly, about how far those can be relied upon and whether they can be a meaningful part of our overall energy production day by day, hour by hour, season in, season out, in different parts of the country. All that is relevant, but I do not know whether my hon. Friend's new clause would provide any of that information or whether that was his intention.

Christopher Chope: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not having engaged him in the drafting process, because new clause 3 would have been even better with his help.

Eric Forth: Perhaps we can sit down together in the next few days to draft further amendments, because I am confident that an opportunity to draft such amendments will arise, given the need to scrutinise this important Bill very carefully.
	It pains me to say this, but I remain unconvinced by my hon. Friend's new clause. Although my hon. Friend and I agree on most things, our friendship allows us occasionally to disagree on such matters. I can see what he is getting at, but new clause 3 is defective. I await his further explanation, because if he can answer my questions, he may yet persuade me to support his new clause.

Malcolm Wicks: The concept of a millennium has been mentioned, and we have used up a proportion of one this morning.
	I will not enter into a debate about nuclear energy. New clause 3 mentions nuclear energy, but as Madam Deputy Speaker has said, this is not an opportunity to discuss nuclear energy policy. The Bill is about microgeneration and micro-power, and the concept of a micro-nuclear generator suitable for the patio is still a glimmer in the eye of the maddest of mad nuclear scientists. Nuclear power is not directly relevant to today's deliberations.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: No; not yet.
	New clause 3 would give the Secretary of State a duty to report whether energy consumed in the UK was produced by microgeneration, nuclear energy or fossil fuels. The Department of Trade and Industry already publishes monthly, quarterly and annual data on energy produced by nuclear energy and fossil fuels, and microgeneration, which is currently minimal, does not form part of the survey. When the number of microgeneration installations has risen to a level that allows the collection of reliable data, we will include microgeneration in our reports, so the new clause is superfluous. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has studied the existing published data and found it to be inadequate, or whether he has not accessed the relevant shelves in the Library.

Christopher Chope: The Minister has referred to statistics on energy produced, but the new clause deals with energy consumed. Does his Department produce weekly or monthly statistics on, for example, the percentage of energy consumed generated by nuclear power in France?

Malcolm Wicks: If the hon. Gentleman studies the data again, he can satisfy himself—for example, we know that roughly 19 per cent. of current electricity consumption was generated by nuclear power. I will write to him about the French connection, because there may be technical factors in determining the source of electricity coming into this country. If my physics has let me down, which it often does, I shall write to him, but I think that two British isles—Guernsey and Jersey—already consume French nuclear energy, although the situation is more complicated across the rest of the British isles.
	Amendment No. 28 would mean that the annual reporton greenhouse gas emissions published under clause 2 would contain data on reductions attributable to microgeneration and nuclear energy. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs currently publishes data on greenhouse gas emissions by the energy sector, and as I have said, the DTI publishes statistics on energy produced from different sources. Given all that publication, there is no need for a specific requirement on reductions attributable to microgeneration and nuclear power. I therefore oppose new clause 3 and amendment No. 28.

Christopher Chope: We have had a useful debate. I am grateful to the Minister for joining in, for telling us what information is available and for offering to write to me about the important question of the amount of energy consumed in this country that was generated overseas by nuclear power. His willingness to try to provide that information suggests that he sees that it would be remiss of the British people to think that they are doing a good thing in rejecting domestically generated nuclear electricity if they continue to rely on surges of French-generated nuclear electricity. The difference between Greenwich mean time, British summer time and continental time mean that peak surges in demand come at different times, which is a great virtue of the interconnector.
	I was disappointed by the response by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). The Bill includes many requirements to produce this and that, so I should have thought that he would be pleased to see such a report being presented to Parliament. There is a difference between statistics being published by Departments and statistics being included in a report available to Members of Parliament. I thought that I detected a sneering tone in the hon. Gentleman's comments about nuclear energy, but perhaps I was mistaken and am being unduly jaundiced.
	My greatest concern about this short debate is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) remains unconvinced. He made the good point that individual figures are not useful unless one can identify trends. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has produced a document examining trends over a 12-year period—not a millennium—which shows significant changes in activity. For example, the amount of nuclear electricity produced in the Czech Republic increased by 48.9 per cent. between 1990 and 2002. Over the same period, the amount increased by 125 per cent. in Sweden, decreased by 0.9 per cent. in South Korea and increased by 33.9 per cent. in the UK. I accept my right hon. Friend's point that taking one year's figures alone is not useful, unless one can point to the trend, but obviously if the Secretary of State produced the reports every year, we could compare one year's report with the next. When the new report was published, we could examine the equivalent figures for the previous year and work out the trends from that.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is probably right in a technical mathematical sense. However, I am more worried about the cost of collecting the data to produce the report to which new clause 3 refers. Is he satisfied that it would be reasonable and containable? A more sporadic basis for reporting would cost less than insisting on doing it annually or continuously. Will he concede that at least?

Christopher Chope: I would concede that, if the Minister had not already said that most of material that I have requested is already available. However, my right hon. Friend's point about cost is material to microgeneration. I was surprised when the Minister admitted that he had no ability to measure in detail the amount of consumed energy that comes from microgeneration. Yet the Government have set a target of 10 per cent. by 2010. If they cannot measure the existing amount, how can they set a target?

Malcolm Wicks: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a master of data, because that is what the new clause is about. However, he is wrong about the target. The target of 10 per cent. is for renewables: we hope that 10 per cent. of our electricity will come from renewables, including wind turbines rather larger than those that some of us hope to put on our roofs. It is not a target for microgeneration. On this rare occasion, he has missed the point.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful for that clarification. I fully accept that I was under a misapprehension. I wrongly equated renewables with microgeneration. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that microgeneration was a form of renewable. [Hon. Members: "Not necessarily."] In that case, I am even more confused.

Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the little friendly exchanges that we have on Fridays illustrate the value of such debates? It is important that amendments are tabled and debates are held on Report so that we can all learn, as well as make good law.

Christopher Chope: My starting point was believing that the Bill was about climate change. As I understood it, the way of avoiding climate change—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be winding up the debate on new clause 3. Perhaps he would do that.

Christopher Chope: I will. I was simply following on from my helpful exchange with the Minister because I was told that microgeneration was not necessarily renewable and did not therefore necessarily contribute to a reduction in climate change. That puts a different perspective on a Bill that includes climate change in its title. All its important provisions apparently refer to renewables—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause deals with the need for an annual report to Parliament. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will conclude the debate on that.

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has become clear that the new clause has a fault line. It refers to microgeneration but not to renewables. It also refers to nuclear energy and fossil fuels. I admit that when I drafted it, without the benefit of Government drafting advice or that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I omitted to acknowledge that microgeneration and renewables are two different concepts and that the former, as I now understand it, is irrelevant to climate change and global warming. On that basis, it would be better to ascertain whether I could draft the new clause better.
	However, I am grateful to the Minister for offering to write to me about the interconnector, and to all those who have made constructive alternative suggestions. I am also pleased that I tabled the new clause. If I had not, I would have remained under the illusion that microgeneration contributed significantly to reducing climate change, when it obviously does not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Local authorities to have regard to information on energy measures in exercising functions

'(1)   The Secretary of State—
	(a)   must, not later than 12 months after this section comes into force, publish an energy measures report, and
	(b)   may from time to time publish revised energy measures reports.
	(2)   Every local authority must, in exercising any of their functions, have regard to the most recently published energy measures report (if any).
	(3)   In this section, "energy measures report" means a document containing information on local authority measures which would or might in the opinion of the Secretary of State have any of the following effects—
	(a)   improving efficiency in the use of electricity, heat, gas, fuel and other descriptions or sources of energy;
	(b)   increasing the amount of electricity generated, or heat produced, by microgeneration or otherwise by plant which relies wholly or mainly on low-emissions sources or technologies;
	(c)   reducing emissions of greenhouse gases;
	(d)   reducing the number of households in which one or more persons are living in fuel poverty.
	(4)   In subsection (3)—
	"local authority measure" means any way in which a local authority can exercise any of their functions, including—
	(a)   taking any particular step in the exercise of a function, or
	(b)   not exercising a particular power;
	"low-emissions source or technology" means a source of energy or a technology mentioned in subsection (2) of section 23.
	(5)   Before publishing an energy measures report (or a revised energy measures report), the Secretary of State must consult the National Assembly for Wales and—
	(a)   such representatives of local government, and
	(b)   such other persons (if any),
	as he considers appropriate.
	(6)   In this section, "local authority" means any of the following—
	(a)   a county council;
	(b)   a county borough council;
	(c)   a district council;
	(d)   a London borough council;
	(e)   the Common Council of the City of London in their capacity as a local authority;
	(f)   the Council of the Isles of Scilly;
	(g)   a parish council;
	(h)   a community council.'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Building regulations relating to emissions and use of fuel and power: time limit for prosecutions

'(1)   After section 35 of the Building Act 1984 (c. 55) insert—
	"35A   Time limit for prosecution for contravention of certain building regulations
	(1)   Despite anything in section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43), an information relating to a relevant offence may be tried by a magistrates' court if it is laid at any time—
	(a)   within the period of two years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed, and
	(b)   within the period of six months beginning with the relevant date.
	(2)   In subsection (1) above, "relevant offence" means a contravention of a provision contained in building regulations which is designated in the regulations as one to which this section applies.
	(3)   A provision may be designated under subsection (2) above if, and only if—
	(a)   it was made—
	(i)   for the purpose of furthering the conservation of fuel and power or otherwise in connection with the use of fuel and power, or
	(ii)   for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (within the meaning of the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006), and
	(b)   contravention of the provision would be an offence under section 35 above.
	(4)   In subsection (1)(b) above, "the relevant date" means the date on which evidence sufficient to justify the proceedings comes to the knowledge of the person commencing the proceedings.
	(5)   In the case of proceedings commenced by a local authority—
	(a)   evidence is to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (4) above as sufficient to justify the proceedings if in the opinion of the proper officer or an authorised officer it is sufficient to justify the proceedings, and
	(b)   a certificate of the proper officer or, as the case may be, that authorised officer as to the date on which evidence which, in his opinion, was sufficient to justify the proceedings came to the knowledge of the person commencing the proceedings is to be conclusive evidence of that fact.
	(6)   Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to a contravention of any provision contained in building regulations which was committed before that provision was designated under subsection (2) above."
	(2)   In section 53 of that Act (effect of initial notice ceasing to be in force), after subsection (6) insert—
	"(6A)   Subsection (6) above is without prejudice to any ability which, after that function has become exercisable, the local authority may have under section 35A above to commence proceedings for the offence after the end of that period of six months." '.—[Yvette Cooper.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 6—Building regulations to emissions and use of fuel and power: report regarding compliance
	Government amendments Nos. 54, 56 and 57.

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on all the work that he has done on the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on his work on the issues relating to building regulations that are raised in the new clause. I also welcome the work that was done in Committee on this issue.
	New clause 5 extends the time limit within which local authorities may bring prosecutions for breaches of those parts of the building regulations designed to conserve fuel and power. We will be strengthening those regulations—known as part L—from 6 April, so that buildings will be 40 per cent. more energy efficient than in 2002. They are particularly important in tackling climate change when building new developments.
	If the regulations are to make a difference, they need to be complied with. The new clause will increase the time limit for action, so that if local authorities discover a breach up to two years after it has taken place, they can still take action in the courts, rather than having only six months, as they now do. New clause 6 also promotes greater compliance by asking the Government to report back to Parliament on the issue. Extending the time limits for local authorities to take action could improve compliance with all aspects of the building regulations, and we would like to extend to two years the period relating to all aspects of the regulations. However, only certain parts of the regulations fall within the scope of the Bill. We have therefore taken this opportunity to extend the time limit for the regulations relating to energy efficiency, but it is important to recognise that other aspects of the building regulations also need improvement in order to increase compliance.

Eric Forth: Is the Minister not worried that this could cause confusion? If we are to have two different regimes operating, people might be unaware that only a partial change has been made. They might not know the status of each type of regulation, and whether it had a time limit of six months or two years. Will that not create difficulties?

Yvette Cooper: Clearly, it would be better to be able to extend the time limits for all the building regulations at the same time, but that is not within the scope of the Bill. However, we shall seek to extend the provisions to all the other regulations at the earliest opportunity. It is right that we should make the most of this opportunity, given the impact that it could have on improving compliance with the energy efficiency regulations, and the benefits that that could have for addressing climate change.

Michael Fabricant: Is the Minister aware of my concern that building regulations have driven a lot of good electrical engineers out of business? Will she assure me that the new clauses will not adversely affect such traders?

Yvette Cooper: I cannot see why the new clauses would affect such traders in any way. They are simply about giving local authorities more chance to pursue breaches of compliance, and it is right that they should be able to do so.
	New clause 6 requires Ministers to report back to Parliament on the steps taken to improve compliance with part L and related provisions. We intend to do that, and we take the matter very seriously. If the Bill passes in a timely way, it is our intention to make the report in January 2007 and to include in it matters such as pressure testing, which we are introducing from this April.
	The new clauses will be a helpful way of improving compliance with the building regulations. Given the importance of having high standards in the new homes that we need for the next generation, the provisions will add considerable value to the Bill.

Gregory Barker: When this issue arose in Committee, it usefully exposed a flaw in the Bill which we thrashed out at the time. I am glad that the Government have been as good as their word, and I thank the Minister for returning with a sensible proposal that I am sure all members of the Committee will welcome.
	Extending the time within which prosecutions can be brought must not send local authorities the message that they can relax, and can delay investigation of breaches. The provision is not a way of buying them more time; it constitutes a recognition of the importance that we attach to effective enforcement.
	As the Minister has heard, there was considerable dissatisfaction with her Department in Committee. While that was articulated by Opposition Members, including me, I think that it was felt throughout the Committee. I am pleased to see the Minister here today, however, and I hope that the constructive way in which she approached the Committee's deliberations on this issue will be reflected in more constructive consideration of other matters in relation to which concern about her Department was expressed in Committee.

Alan Whitehead: I welcome the new clauses. One of the Bill's aims is to ensure that account is taken of ways in which new build can deal with its own energy needs and consumption, which will not be possible in the long term without proper compliance with building regulations in their current or future form. The new clauses make that possible in a practical fashion, and I thank the Minister for proposing measures that will increase the breadth of the Bill.

Andrew Stunell: I welcome new clause 5. There is clear evidence from the Building Research Establishment that most new homes do not comply with the current building regulations. As we raise standards—regrettably, not fast enough or far enough—the risk will increase, as will the need for effective enforcement.
	I am pleased that the Minister has proposed these measures. As we heard from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), in Committee her Department was subjected to sustained criticism from me, among others, because of its unambitious approach to the implementation of effective building regulations and improvements in energy efficiency and conservation, not just in the housing sector but throughout the built environment.
	I hope that, having taken this important step, the Minister will take a second look at the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004, which I was fortunate enough to promote successfully in the House. The Act proposes that a responsible and accountable person should carry the can for compliance with regulations in the case of each building project. Enforcement becomes a great deal easier if someone on the contracting side is responsible for compliance.
	I also welcome new clause 6, which gives the Government a duty to report. I hope that it will give Parliament an opportunity to remind the Minister annually that we still think she has not done enough to bring this part of her Department's work under control.

Christopher Chope: It is a very long time since I was a Minister in the equivalent of the Minister's Department, but I recall that in those days, it was the building inspector's responsibility to look at a building's construction and to decide whether the building regulations had been complied with. We privatised the building inspectorate so that a range of different people could carry out building inspection responsibilities, and my understanding is that it is already incumbent on the person constructing or seeking to alter a house to employ a building inspector. If so, why should a building inspector so employed not ensure that a building complies with the regulations? The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) thinks that—even before the new, much more stringent regulations come into force on 6 April—the majority of new houses do not comply with the building regulations.

Andrew Stunell: That is not my opinion; it is the result of a survey carried out by the Building Research Establishment. It identified the cause of the problem—the privatisation of the building inspection regime that the hon. Gentleman has just boasted about.

Christopher Chope: That is a bit of a non sequitur, is it not? As a result of such privatisation, house builders are entitled to ask a range of different people to carry out building inspections. If a builder fails to employ a building inspector or to produce certificates, they fail to comply with the building regulations. However, under the new clause, instead of the onus being placed on the building inspector, it is the constructor who will be subject to prosecution, and long after the event.
	The extent of the powers being taken in the new clause is absolutely unconscionable. The normal principle in a magistrates court is that someone has to receive a summons or similar information within six months of committing an offence, and we know how that process operates with speeding or other motoring offences, for example. Unless someone is charged within a maximum of six months of committing such an offence, it is, in a sense, time-expired. The thinking behind that principle is that such a person cannot possibly recall exactly what they were doing more than six months after laying such information before a court.
	That is the background to section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, which provides an important safeguard against the abuse of arbitrary power. In essence, it says that anyone who is going to charge somebody with an offence had better get on with it. There is no reason why building inspectors should be unable to have the relevant information at the time when the building in question is being constructed. Six months is obviously a reasonable period within which they or the owner of the building can be prosecuted if there has been a failure to comply with the regulations. Why should the period be extended beyond that?
	Implicit in the new clause is the belief that there is a problem with identifying whether there has been a breach of the building regulations, but surely such matters should be the responsibility of the building inspector, who has a statutory duty in this regard. If there is collusion between a building inspector and a developer—it seems that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove thinks that that has been happening—that is a separate issue. That would be a conspiracy to break the law. There is no time limit for the initiation of prosecution. Conspiracy is a serious criminal allegation and a serious criminal charge. If there is a conspiracy between a developer or the builder of a house and a building inspector to try to mislead on whether the building regulations have been complied with, that is not covered by the time limit, because that would be a conspiracy.
	In a situation short of a conspiracy, why do we need to make an exception to the general principle that is set out in section 127(1) that for such an offence any information should be laid within the period of six months? In the new clause, the Government are saying that such information can be laid within two years rather than six months. That is subject only to the qualification that information is laid within six months beginning with what is described as "the relevant date". That is the date
	"on which evidence sufficient to justify the proceedings comes to the knowledge of the person commencing the proceedings."
	An incredibly wide power is being taken by the Government. Subsection (5) says that if the person bringing the proceedings is a local authority—it does not matter if it is anybody else—
	"evidence is to be regarded . . . as sufficient to justify the proceedings if in the opinion of the proper officer . . . it is sufficient to justify the proceedings."
	In other words, there is no objective assessment. There is no scope for this to be justiciable in the court. Why not? Why is the power of the court being ousted in terms of whether or not the person, in bringing the proceedings, should have known, could have known or did know that the offence had been committed prior to the period of six months beginning with knowledge of the information?
	Why should that power be contained in the subsection? Surely the test of whether the relevant date has been satisfied should be an objective one that the court can investigate as to when the knowledge of the person commencing the proceedings was such that he or she felt that there was sufficient information to enable the proceedings to be brought.
	Paragraph (b) is a further affront to those of us who believe that evidence should be assessed by courts rather than on the basis that the evidence is as it is if some official says it is. That is no way in which to bring people to conviction following a prosecution. Why is it that this issue is not to be allowed to be justiciable? That is outrageous and entirely over the top. Of course, that is typical of so many things that the Government are doing at the moment. They are playing fast and loose with our civil liberties. This is a little measure to be brought in under the umbrella of a Bill that people may think is of no great issue. The result could be that people, long after the event, are being accused of offences, and at that stage no longer having the material available to enable them to defend themselves. That is the essence of the proposal before us. I am extremely concerned that the Government should want to introduce such a measure.
	Like much regulation we see in this House, the provisions we are considering are based on a failure to ensure that the existing system operates properly. We have a system of building regulations and a requirement, which is separate from planning permission, for a building inspector's approval of new houses and alterations. Now we are saying that, notwithstanding that approval and even in cases in which there is no conspiracy, if it comes to light within two years that there has been an alleged breach of building regulations, it will result in a prosecution. In my submission, that could end up—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle suggested—being counterproductive. Only time will tell, but the provision is in any case oppressive and should not be included in the Bill. I shall oppose it.

Eric Forth: On this occasion, I happily defer to the wisdom and experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who has had a distinguished career in local government, as a Minister in the relevant Department and as an eminent lawyer. His comments chime with my lay reservations about this part of the Bill. The Minister did not make much of an effort to give any really good reason for the change. It is no secret that new clause 5 is something that the Government want to do and they are slipping it into this Bill as a precursor to some wider measure. It always makes me suspicious when private Members' Bills are used as a vehicle to further the Government's purposes.
	A worse prospect is the real possibility that confusion will arise between the proposed two-year period and the existing six-month period. What the Minister said, in effect, is that the two regimes will run side by side, both covering building regulations and local authorities, from whenever this provision reaches the statute book—I hope that it does not—and whenever the Government get around to introducing a broader dispensation. We should not be in the business of increasing confusion. If the Government want to make such a change, they should introduce it properly so that it may be scrutinised properly.
	The most worrying aspect was pointed out by my hon. Friend, based on his legal experience. Even a cursory reading of new clause 5 would make one suspicious that it would radically alter the balance between the individual and the authorities. We should always be very suspicious of such a change and, in my view, we should resist it unless an overwhelming case is made for it. We have not only not heard an overwhelming case today: we have not heard any real case at all. That should give us considerable cause for concern.
	New clause 5(5) states:
	"In the case of proceedings commenced by a local authority . . . evidence is to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (4) above as sufficient to justify the proceedings if in the opinion of the proper officer or an authorised officer it is sufficient to justify the proceedings".
	If that is not an example of untrammelled power, I do not know what is. We do not even know who these authorised officers might be, nor what restrictions might be placed on the giving of the power under the new clause. That is a very worrying development.
	Of course, we will be told that the new clause is all right, because it is going to save the planet. It is not all right. It will not save the planet, but even if it would, we would want much more justification than has so far been offered for what appears to be a fundamental shift in the balance between the individual and the authorities under the apparently innocent provisions in new clause 5.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if one looks at subsection 4, one sees that the issue relates to when the material came to the knowledge of the person commencing the proceedings, instead of when it ought to have come to his knowledge? If a building inspector employed by local authority fails to report something, notwithstanding that, the local authority will be able to proceed as though there was no information coming from that building inspector.

Eric Forth: I agree with my hon. Friend. That raises the issue of why this matter was not aired in Committee. However, we have to be frank that one of the problems with Committee proceedings on private Members' Bills in particular is that the Committee members tend, not unreasonably, to be supporters of the Bill and there is a scramble between the Government, if they rather like the Bill, the promoter of the Bill, if he was not given the idea by the Government in the first place, and a compliant Opposition, which is the trend at the moment. Everyone is tumbling over each other to put more and more into the Bill. This measure is a classic case of what should have been done, if at all, in Committee, where it could have been properly scrutinised, instead of bobbing up at the last minute with very little notice to make this fundamental alteration in the law. For all these reasons, unless a much better effort is made to explain and justify this measure, I will not support it.

Yvette Cooper: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I shall begin by responding to the points made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) who the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) just described as "the compliant Opposition" in this case. I am keen to take a constructive approach to the deliberations of the Committee where this matter was discussed and to the decisions of the Department. I wish him luck in trying to take similarly keen and constructive approach to the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) where he may have a little more difficulty.
	I welcome the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) to his new appointment shadowing the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and congratulate him. I know he is interested in sustainability issues, and I look forward to having many debates with him on that issue. I assure him that we are looking at the questions he raised in his private Member's Bill about appointed persons and other matters as part of the current review of existing buildings and how to improve their sustainability.
	It is important to recognise that in April energy efficiency standards will be raised by 40 per cent. compared to 2002. We have already introduced a series of measures to improve compliance, including on training and pressure testing, all of which we need to address as part of the report called for under new clause 6.
	The measures do not change the enforcement framework. At present, if a breach of part L of the building regulations is discovered seven months after work is completed on a building, the local authority cannot take action. The provision would allow action to be taken on discovery of a breach. That is a proportionate and sensible response to the concerns raised with the Government by local authorities and Back Benchers, and debated extensively in Committee.
	I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Linda Gilroy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I raise the issue of the door that blocked my way as I was coming to vote? I was unable to vote, so I will report the matter to the staff of the Serjeant at Arms. However, I wish to place on record the fact that there was a blockage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. There have been occasions when defective door mechanisms have obstructed hon. Members. Fortunately, it was not crucial to the outcome of the vote today, but I regret the inconvenience to her and possibly to other Members. I am sure that now that the matter has been placed on the record, it will be dealt with as speedily as humanly possible.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Building regulations to emissions and use of fuel and power: report regarding compliance

'(1)   The Secretary of State—
	(a)   must, not later than 6 months after this section comes into force, lay before Parliament a report as mentioned in subsection (2), and
	(b)   may from time to time lay further such reports before Parliament.
	(2)   A report under this section is a report on what, if any, steps—
	(a)   he has taken during the reporting period, or
	(b)   he proposes to take,
	with a view to securing a greater incidence of compliance with relevant provisions of building regulations.
	(3)   In this section—
	"reporting period" means the period specified in the report as the period to which the report relates;
	"relevant provision", in relation to building regulations, means a provision of building regulations which is in force at any time during the reporting period and which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, was made—
	(c)   for the purpose of furthering the conservation of fuel and power, or otherwise in connection with the use of fuel and power, or
	(d)   for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Reports on greenhouse gas emissions

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 29, in page 2, line 13, leave out paragraph (c).
	Government amendment No. 50

Malcolm Wicks: Amendments Nos. 35 and 50 will move the definition of greenhouse gases to clause 23, alongside other definitions. This consequential amendment is required because greenhouse gas emissions are referred to at other points in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 29, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), removes nitrous oxide from the definition of greenhouse gases. Nitrous oxide is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential 296 times greater than carbon dioxide. Once released, nitrous oxide has a lifetime of 120 years in the atmosphere. Therefore, the nitrous oxide emitted now will be warming the Earth well into the next century.
	The United nations framework convention on climate change has recognised the seriousness of anthropogenic emissions of nitrous oxide by including the gas in the "basket" of six gases to be included in the Kyoto protocol, and that is what the UK and the rest of the parties to the convention report on.

Christopher Chope: Does the Minister agree that nitrous oxide is a by-product of catalytic converters? If it is a by-product of them and is a bad thing, why are the Government imposing catalytic converters on vehicles?

Malcolm Wicks: That goes beyond our discussions today. The point of my remarks is to say that although the hon. Gentleman wants to remove nitrous oxide from the definition, it would, with respect, be foolish to do so given its dangerous nature. Given its immense global warming potential, it makes no sense to remove it from the reports, because that would not give a full picture of the UK's progress in reducing emissions of the most important greenhouse gases.
	I commend amendments Nos. 35 and 50 but, for the reasons given, I oppose amendment No. 29.

Christopher Chope: I wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 29. As the Minister said, it would remove nitrous oxide from the list that it is in the Bill. It would no longer be necessary for the Secretary of State
	"in the course of each calendar year to lay before Parliament a report on . . . steps taken by government departments"
	to reduce the levels of nitrous oxide
	"in the United Kingdom during the previous calendar year, including any increase or decrease in that level recorded during that year."
	I tabled the amendment because the effects of nitrous oxide, as with many other things, cut both ways. I accept that it is 1,000 times less abundant in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, although it has a more potent greenhouse effect. However, nitrous emissions in the United Kingdom fell by 40 per cent. between 1990 and 2003, so that it now represents only 6 per cent. of UK greenhouse gas emissions.
	Before we start saying, "Well, because it's a bad thing, we must try to reduce its use or ban it," let us think about some of the applications for which nitrous oxide is used. Agriculture is the largest single source of nitrous oxide and accounts for about two thirds of its emissions. The rural parts of this country still have a largely agricultural economy. If we did away with agriculture, we would obviously be able to reduce nitrous oxide emissions by two thirds, but think of the consequences of doing that. Nitrous oxide is used in agriculture for fertiliser application and leeching. The only way in which the nitrous oxide generated by agriculture could be reduced would be to have fewer farm animals, or to use less fertiliser. If less fertiliser is used, land, by definition, becomes less productive.
	It is interesting to examine the trends of nitrous oxide emissions in the United Kingdom. In 1990, agriculture caused 103,000 tonnes of nitrous oxide emissions. In 2003, which is the latest year for which I have figures, the figure had reduced to 87,000 tonnes. Progress has been made in the right direction because the extent to which fertiliser is used unnecessarily has been reduced, but I suggest that the figure of 87,000 tonnes cannot be significantly reduced further without there being a disastrous impact on the viability of agriculture in our country.
	We have already reduced almost all the nitrous oxide that emanates from industrial processes. That amounted to 94,000 tonnes in 1990, but by 2003, the figure had gone down to just 10,000 tonnes. However, the amount of nitrous oxide produced because of road transport has been increasing because of the introduction of catalytic converters. I actually think that they are a good thing, so I was putting a tongue-in-cheek question to the Minister when I asked whether he wished to abolish them. Catalytic converters make the use of motor cars less dirty than would otherwise be the case, but let us not ignore the consequences of that. One of the side effects of imposing catalytic converters on our road transport fleet is an increase in the United Kingdom's output of nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, which has an impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
	The output of nitrous oxide from sources other than agriculture, industrial processes and road transport has remained roughly the same. The output was 18,000 tonnes in 1990 and 17,000 tonnes in 2003—a modest reduction. Overall, we were able to achieve a significant reduction in nitrous oxide emissions from 219,000 tonnes to 130,000 tonnes, and one of the main reasons for that was that emissions owing to nylon production fell following the installation of emissions abatement technology.
	We should praise the role of catalytic converters because they eliminate carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. The Minister might disagree, but I think that nitrous oxide is worth the cost. At the moment, most experts agree that the United Kingdom's nitrous oxide emissions are as low as they are ever likely to be with existing technology. That is because almost all sources of nitrous oxide other than agriculture and road transport have been eliminated.
	There is another use for nitrous oxide, which is as an anaesthetic because it deadens pain. It has been described in that context as laughing gas. However, the gas is released naturally from the oceans and by bacteria in soils. Nitrous oxide gas production has risen by more than 15 per cent. since 1750. Each year 7 million to 13 million tones of it go into the atmosphere globally. It is an unavoidable by-product of disposing of human waste in sewage treatment plants. I do not know whether the Minister thinks that we should do away with those and do what they do with sewage in the Army when out on an exercise, or perhaps he agrees that we should have sewage treatment plants as part of a civilised society. Let him recognise that nitrous oxide is a by-product of sewage treatment plants.
	We are left with a situation in which the only way for local authorities to respond to the annual reports, which is what the Bill is essentially about, produced by the Secretary of State on greenhouse gas emissions—if, indeed, the purpose of the reports is to reduce nitrous oxide—is to close down farms or sewage plants, or remove catalytic converters from vehicles. We are absolutely mad if we think that that is a price worth paying so that we can sign up to saying, "Well, nitrous oxides are a greenhouse gas that we can continue to reduce." There are a lot of greenhouse gases that we can do something about, but nitrous oxide is not one of them. That is why the Bill would be much better if references to nitrous oxide were removed.
	Obviously, nitrous oxide is one of the six greenhouse gases mentioned in the Kyoto negotiations, but the Bill is a United Kingdom Bill. I am sure that there are other parts of the world in which nitrous oxide greenhouse gas emissions are a significant factor and could be reduced, but there is no evidence that we can reduce them further here. We should consider amendment No. 35 alongside new clause 4. Why should we require every local authority, in exercising their functions, to have regard to reducing nitrous oxide emissions? That is a total waste of everybody's time. If we want local authorities to deal with greenhouse gases, it would be much better for them to deal with gases other than nitrous oxide.
	Amendment No. 29 is grouped with Government amendments Nos. 35 and 50. I do not understand, and the Minister did not explain, why he needs to rephrase the Bill. Is it because he seeks to group all greenhouse emissions together rather than ensuring that they are dealt with seriatim, as the lawyers say? If so, why is he doing so? Is he trying to fudge the issue? Would it not be much better to look at each greenhouse gas on its own and produce a separate report so that we can be realistic about the pros and cons of seeking reductions? I suspect that the Government amendment would lump together all greenhouse gases, which is rather like a school or a gathering such as the House of Commons blaming everyone equally for something rather than taking a rational approach. It is not rational that UK arrangements should tackle nitrous oxide alone. It is much better to concentrate on tackling other greenhouses gases if, indeed, we need to tackle any of them. That, however, is another debate, and I do not wish to dilute what I hope the House accepts is a potent argument for excluding nitrous oxides from UK arrangements by referring more generally to other greenhouse gases. Other Members, however, may wish to test the Minister's reasons for wishing to deal with the gases collectively rather than separately.
	Kyoto imposed many targets, and I fear that that will lead to distortions. If one bundles greenhouse gases together in a collective target one may lose sight of the main objective. In lumping different greenhouse gases together for the benefit of the UK economy, I fear that the Government are doing a disservice to people engaged in agriculture, sewage disposal or the treatment and manufacture of vehicles with catalytic converters, who will not pleased if it is policy that NOx are considered a bad thing that must be reduced in every circumstance. In conclusion, we place a responsibility on the police, the Highways Agency and sometimes local authorities to ensure that vehicles are fit for the road. One test is to ensure that catalytic converters are effective. Will it be the case that a local authority can say that a catalytic converter is not operating, but that is not a bad thing because it means that it is not contributing to greenhouse gas emissions? I fear that we will embark on such debates if the Minister does not accept my amendment.

Eric Forth: My point of reference for debates on these matters is the excellent second report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, HL paper 12, which covers many of the subjects that we are discussing today extremely well, and I recommend it to the House and to people outside. On page 11, their Lordships consider the greenhouse gases listed in clause 2, and say:
	"The main greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide . . . which is emitted by the use of fossil fuels and by the burning of forests; methane . . . which comes from decaying degradable matter, e.g. in landfill sites, and from livestock".
	They consider nitrous oxides—the subject of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope)—which, they say, come
	"from fertilisers, industrial processes, and fossil fuel burning."
	The report goes on to refer to a group of other gases such as perfluoromethane, perfluoroethane which is used in aluminium production, and sulphur hexafluoride from dielectric fluids. The list is in line with the one that we are discussing.
	The report helpfully provides a list showing how the gases force temperature rises and how they vary substantially. That is expressed in terms of their global warming potential. Carbon dioxide is set at 1, methane is 23 and nitrous oxide is 296. Hydrofluorocarbons vary from 12 to 12,000, perfluorocarbons from 5,000 to 12,000, and sulphur hexafluoride up to 22,200. That bears out the point that my hon. Friend made so eloquently. Sadly, a list such as the one in the Bill, which the Minister proposes to move to a different part of the Bill, gives no indication of the relative effects of the gases.
	My hon. Friend brought out extremely well in his submission and in his amendment the fact that we must be careful not to fall into the trap of treating all gases in the same way. Their lordships' report goes to some pains to identify the fact that some gases are far more important and potentially damaging than others. It is therefore important that we always make a distinction not only as to their relative effect—there are uncertainties surrounding that, which we may explore at some length on Third Reading, but not now—but as to their volumes, so that we can assess their potential effect in the atmosphere and therefore on the climate.
	In that context, I wonder whether the requirement in clause 2 for an annual report on greenhouse gas emissions, which are listed, showing levels of emissions, including increases or decreases, will give us the measure of their potential effect. I say in passing, as I said earlier, that I very much doubt whether an annual report would be the appropriate vehicle for that. Annual variations in emissions may not tell us very much because of individual circumstances of various kinds. It would be much more efficacious to look over a longer time scale, with longer intervals of reporting, to get a clearer view of possible trends and to examine the policy imperatives that may arise from those.
	The impression given by the clause, and even by the annual reporting process, is that if one detects a slight variation in the level of one of the greenhouse gases, something can be done immediately to deal with that. No one would pretend that that was the case, but there is a risk that we give that impression. If, in one of the reports, methane, say, was shown to have gone up slightly or even significantly from one year to another, are we to respond to that in policy terms? I would have thought not. I imagine that we should consider a policy response only if we were able to detect and measure a secular trend one way or the other in these gases. What would our policy response be if there was a decrease? Would we congratulate ourselves, continue with the policies that we believe contributed to that, and tighten them or loosen them, or, as my hon. Friend suggested, would we have some regard as to whether they play, in a different way, a vital part in our economy—transport, in this case? All that would have to be taken into account.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend has referred to methane: UK methane emissions have dropped by 50 per cent. since 1999 and now form only 7 per cent. of total UK emissions—agriculture and landfill are the main methane producers. Will my right hon. Friend accept that that is another area in which the figures have decreased significantly? The Government seem to want a global figure rather than considering each greenhouse gas separately.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend's point raises the question of the sectoral effect—in other words, which sectors are producing those gases and what the effect might be sector by sector if we sought to reduce such emissions. There is a real debate about the global versus the particular, which the next group of amendments will allow us to explore. We should always consider the particular as well as the global.

Andrew Robathan: On the particular, has my right hon. Friend seen the amusing photograph of the Secretary of State for Health's car stuck on the blocker in Downing street? It is approximately 125 yd from Downing street to Richmond terrace. Does he think that the Government are showing leadership on reducing carbon emissions when the Secretary of State for Health could have walked those 125 yd?

Eric Forth: That point relates to the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about catalytic converters and nitrous oxide. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has referred to a very particular effect, and we are getting down to the level of individual vehicles. I hope that we can debate whether the much-vaunted hybrid vehicles are as environmentally beneficial as has been claimed—I wonder how the battery is disposed of when a hybrid reaches end of life and whether that gives rise to greenhouse gases. We tend to get drawn into examining narrowly focused matters that should be broadened out. Few Ministers walk, while many of them have several cars or use a hybrid without having asked serious questions about the effect on the environment of the large battery at the end of life. Perhaps the Minister will tell us his views on that matter at some point, but an annual report on a global increase or decrease in those gases will not take us very far in terms of policy.
	I shall end as I began by recommending the House of Lords report, to which I hope to refer much more extensively on Third Reading, when we debate the general impact of the Bill. For the time being, I am happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and eager to hear the Minister's response.

Mark Lazarowicz: No one has suggested that different greenhouse gases have different impacts, although the rate of emission obviously varies from greenhouse gas to greenhouse gas. The greenhouse gases specified by the Bill are those that we are signed up internationally to monitor and seek to reduce.
	Once again, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) seeks to broaden the debate beyond what the Bill is intended to do. Indeed, he has challenged the basis on which we have signed up to the Kyoto protocol. He may agree with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that we should not be signed up to the Kyoto protocol but we are and we have commitments. It is therefore only fair to ensure that we have mechanisms in the UK to monitor our performance on them.

Christopher Chope: Rather than generalising about Kyoto, does the hon. Gentleman believe that we should outlaw catalytic converters to reduce nitrous oxide emissions in accordance with Kyoto?

Mark Lazarowicz: Of course not. The hon. Gentleman should tackle the issue more constructively. I appeal to him not to press amendment No. 29 because it contributes nothing positive to the Bill or to our international obligations.

Gregory Barker: As one who gave up chemistry at 14 and Latin even earlier, I have struggled at times to keep up with the learned debate and the well informed points that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made. However, given that the Minister had the benefit of a large body of scientific opinion, not least that of the chief scientist, in drafting the Government amendments, which appear reasonable, I have no problem with them.
	As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said, nitrous oxide is, legally, a Kyoto treaty gas. Its reduction must therefore be reported. That is not to negate the interesting points that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made, but all of us who support the Bill do so because we recognise the genuine danger that climate change poses and the contribution that CO 2 makes to climate change. Amendment No. 29 is unhelpful because it would convey a mixed message about our commitment to Kyoto and do nothing to strengthen our international reputation.
	Conservative Front Benchers therefore support Government amendments Nos. 35 and 50 and decline to support amendment No. 29.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3
	 — 
	National targets for microgeneration

Eric Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 20, at end insert
	', and after consultation with such public and private sector bodies as he considers appropriate'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'national' and insert 'regional'.
	Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'national' and insert 'regional'.
	Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
	'Wales and the regions of England'.
	Amendment No. 16, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
	'Wales or one of the regions of England'.
	Amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'number' and insert 'numbers'.
	Amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 36 [Clause 3], leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
	'Wales and the regions of England'.
	Amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 43, leave out 'number' and insert 'numbers'.
	Amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 44, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
	'Wales and regions of England'.
	Amendment No. 30, in page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (7).
	Government amendment No. 36
	Amendment No. 31, in page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (8).
	Government amendments Nos. 37 and 38
	Amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 20, clause 6, leave out 'appropriate' and insert
	'efficacious, cost-effective and environmentally beneficial'.

Eric Forth: I want to promote a debate about whether it is more sensible for us to adopt a national approach or whether a regional basis would be more practical and workable. Usually the word "regional" is unpopular on the Conservative Benches, but there are occasions when it is relevant and this is one of them. I say that for several reasons, which I shall try to explore.
	Proceeding on a regional rather than a national basis would create the possibility of conducting pilot schemes. One aspect of our approach not only to the Bill but to related measures that worries me is the assumption that if we simply go ahead with all the splendid schemes, ideas and projects on a national basis, they will work and be beneficial. However, a cautious and focused approach to microgeneration might be more worth while. The amendments suggest that a regional rather than a national basis would give us the facility to pilot effectively whatever we believe will be beneficial and ascertain what works and what does not. That is the first reason for my approach.
	The other, quite different, reason is that, even in this small nation of ours, there are enormous variations in climatic conditions. Surely we should take account of that when considering the feasibility of different sources of energy, not least microgeneration. It does not require a great deal of imagination to understand that there will be an enormous difference in the contribution that solar panels or windmills are likely to make in a coastal area as opposed to an inland one, in the south of our country as opposed to the north, or in a city as opposed to a rural area.

Christopher Chope: Is my right hon. Friend familiar with the concept of microclimates? Even within his own constituency or mine, for example, there will be different microclimates. They might be similar to microgeneration, in that they ought to be considered in their own context.

Eric Forth: Of course that is the case, but we have to strike a balance to find the most sensible and workable way forward. We could range from a national approach all the way through to a very local or individual approach. We could consider operating these measures along the lines of local authority areas—indeed, I considered that when I was formulating the amendment—or operating them even more locally. I concluded, however, that it would be more realistic to do so at regional level, as that would make more sense in regard to the setting of targets and the assessment of the results.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the problems regarding regional issues relates to the regional boundaries? For example, my constituency is right on the edge of the south-west region, yet it looks more to the south-east. Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that we should have a totally different approach in Christchurch from the one taken in the New Forest?

Eric Forth: I have to concede to my hon. Friend that, whenever we draw boundaries and delineate areas, there will be anomalies. However, I am suggesting that national targets—particularly in the area of climate, microgeneration and the like—would probably be relatively meaningless, and that a regional approach would be much more sensible. I understand that anomalies could well arise in regard to the boundaries between regions, as my hon. Friend suggests, but I think that we shall just have to accept that that might, on occasions, be somewhat misleading or take us in the wrong direction. On balance, however, a regional approach would be preferable to a national one.

Christopher Chope: How does my right hon. Friend envisage the calculations being made to form the basis for the regional targets?

Eric Forth: That raises an important point. We could, and should, equally ask how we would set about formulating a national target? In the light of the different profiles, demographics and geographical locations of the different regions, we are more likely to be able to set sensible targets for microgeneration and its outcomes at regional level than on a national basis. For example, we should be able to make an assessment of the likely efficacy of domestic windmills or solar panels depending on whether they were on the west coast or the east coast, or in the north of the country or the south. That would be more practical than setting a national target. It could also lead to a more focused approach to policy development.
	There are huge variations in housing in this country. For example, if we compare the north of Scotland with Greater London and the south-east of England, a number of important variations spring immediately to mind. Surely domestic windmill or solar panel installations would be far more practical in scattered rural areas than in dense urban areas containing rows of terraced houses. Establishing targets, measuring them and then drawing the appropriate policy conclusions would be done much better on a regional than on a national basis.

Christopher Chope: I take my right hon. Friend's point, but might it not have been better to differentiate between rural and urban areas, as that is where the big divide is found?

Eric Forth: That would certainly be an approach, but in the light of the local authority provisions in new clause 4 it is probably better in policy terms to target a regional area within which there are identifiable local authorities, to which we have now devolved some of the responsibilities for microgeneration, than simply to differentiate between rural and urban areas. That, hopefully, will provide a continuum from the setting of the target on a regional basis, through the—now—responsible local authorities, to the most local level—the parish or community level. My hon. Friend and I tried to prevent that arrangement, but sadly the Bill now provides for it.
	If that approach were adopted, data would have to be compiled, targets would have to be set, and the resultant data would have to be monitored and interpreted. It would also make more sense for interpretation to take place regionally, because of the variations that I have mentioned.
	Let me return to the issue of piloting. A regional approach would make it possible to select one or more regions—perhaps very different regions—to establish the way in which targets should be set. It would then be possible over a period—not more than five or 10 years—to establish how much sense the targets made, and, by means of decisions made by Government, by local authorities and at other levels, to establish how they could best be used to promote the Bill's objectives. Targets are only of any value and validity if they make sense, and lead to policy decisions that allow the promotion of policy objectives.
	I do not think that operating at national level makes much sense in this context, because of the variations to which I have referred. We need a more focused approach based on one or two regions. There might be enormous variations between the regions. One might be a dense urban area—the west midlands spring to mind, if not London, which always seems to be cited as an example—while the other might be much more rural. In the south-west of England, for instance, the climate is different, the wind patterns are different and the days of sunlight are different. Such an approach would enable us to establish much more meaningfully the possible effects of solar panels and windmills as a viable source of alternative energy in, for example, a dense urban area. I remain to be convinced on that point.
	What happens will of course depend on decisions that we make on later parts of the Bill, which involve the interesting and complex issue of the planning regime that we intend to introduce, as against what are perceived to be environmental or energy-related imperatives. There is a potential for conflict that we may not be close to resolving.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend envisage competition between the different regions over targets, over which of them had met their targets or exceeded them, or over the margins by which the targets had been exceeded?

Eric Forth: That is always a possibility, but my initial reaction to my hon. Friend's suggestion is that I am unsure how productive that approach would be, given the variation between regions. Indeed, if he and I are to follow our own precept—the importance of local decision making—we need to be cautious about taking a competitive approach to target setting at regional level. We expect a lot of the heavy lifting to be done by local authorities, so although my hon. Friend's suggestion is intriguing, for the moment, I would probably set it to one side.
	I hope that the Minister and the Bill's promoter will give serious thought to my suggested approach. I am genuinely trying to make the Bill more workable, and I have doubts about a blanket, national approach. If we are to remain focused, we need to work our way carefully through—

Mark Lazarowicz: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's close scrutiny of the Bill, but it might have been a little more helpful had he accepted my invitation to serve on the Standing Committee. He could have pursued these points in detail in that Committee, and we might have been able to satisfy his concerns and to reach a consensus.

Eric Forth: That is a possibility; on the other hand, it might have prolonged consideration in Committee. Rather than consisting of a happy band of like-minded people involved in a rubber-stamping exercise, the Committee might have had to debate these issues at length. I accept that there is a trade-off and that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to take the view that, instead of having enthusiasts on such Committees, we should have people with seriously opposing views who participate in serious debates. Had that happened, we would probably barely have dealt with the first group of amendments before us in one average Standing Committee sitting. However, I accept that there is a plus and a minus.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if he and, say, I had been serving on that Committee, it is most unlikely that the Bill would have reached consideration on Report today, and that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) would have missed his slot for this Friday?

Eric Forth: Yes, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) is in a very fortunate position—he and I have discussed this, in the friendliest possible way—in that, because the House has sensibly progressed and passed so few Bills this Session, which gladdens my heart, he has a vast array of Fridays ahead of him on which he can bring the Bill back to the House. So we can take a leisurely view: there is no time pressure at all and wherever we may end up today, the hon. Gentleman can happily bring the Bill back next Friday, or on a subsequent Friday, and we can continue our debate. We may or may not finish it then, and if not, he can bring it back again. In my experience, that is a very fortunate, if not unique, position for such a Bill to be in. So we can take a much more relaxed approach than might otherwise be the case, and the 99 happy souls who have just gone through the Aye Lobby can come back on other Fridays and express their support for the Bill. I am sure that they will be delighted to do so. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his good fortune, and he is quite properly able to take advantage of his prominent position in the private Member's Bill ballot.
	I return to the regions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you doubtless want me to do. I hope that the House begins to see my thinking. A regional approach would be uniquely appropriate to the subject of this Bill, given the variations in housing density that I have mentioned. In that context, we have yet to explore the viability of a target-based approach. The assumption is that targets are the way ahead, and we all know how fond this Government are of targets, but what will be the policy outcome if they are not met? There is the interminable argument as to whether one should pitch targets at a low or realistic level in the expectation that they will be met, or at a deliberately much higher level in the hope that they will be met, while fearing that they will not. That is a separate issue. The more important issue is what happens if, the targets having been set and measured, we find that we are failing to meet them? We would probably be able to respond much better, in a more focused and practical way, at regional level than we would be able to do at national level, for a variety of reasons. We could then bring to bear the combined resources of the Government and local authorities, and if appropriate regional authorities, in so far as they are relevant, rather than attempting to deal with the matter nationwide.

Christopher Chope: Given, for example, the recent national target to reduce poverty among children, the Government missed that target by 300,000 children. Would that have had the same prominence in the media if a series of individual regional targets had been missed?

Eric Forth: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in that. That is one of the trade-offs or balances that we inevitably have to strike in these matters. There is the impact that the figures might have. I concede to my hon. Friend that there is a risk that if we went down the regional approach that I am suggesting there might not be the impact that the national figure might have. That is a presentational impact, with, perhaps, policy repercussions on Government. Against that, I am prepared to trade off what I believe would be the benefits of a more focused and a more regional approach.
	Subsection (5) states that if
	"a target is designated under subsection (1)"—
	at the moment, we are talking about a national target, but this would apply equally to my regional targets—
	"the Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to secure the target is met."
	I do not know what that means. I hope that the Minister will sum up this part of the debate. He might tell us whathe envisages would be the departmental or governmental response to a failure to meet a target, be it national or regional, not least bearing in mind that new clause 4 appears to have placed much of the responsibility for the delivery of this policy on local authorities rather than on national Government. It says, interestingly—here is the escape hatch—that if
	"the Secretary of State does not designate a target under subsection (1) he shall publish forthwith a statement of his reasons."
	If we take the regional approach that I am suggesting, and if we were to undertake what amounts to a pilot scheme in one of the regions, the Secretary of State might want to return, having conducted that pilot project, to say, "I do not think that the target approach will work in this case," for whatever reason. He might say that the Government were not able sensibly to formulate a target or that they fell so far short of it that the outcome demonstrated that the targeting approach, in this context, did not make very much sense, or whatever.
	The let-out, if we want to put it that way, is interesting. Funnily enough, I rather welcome it. I do not see any point in a Bill such as the one that is before us trying to shackle any Secretary of State so much, and certainly not to oblige him to provide targets, either national or regional, to such an extent that if, for some reason, they were not met, we would then have to continue to produce endless revised targets—something that the Government have often done in the past—that is, to set a target, fail to meet it and so change the target downwards so that it is then more easily achieved. That does not get us anywhere. In a funny way, the let-out, if I may call it that, in subsection (6), probably makes a degree of sense.

Christopher Chope: Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that the let-out is linked into a specific date, which is 1 November 2008, as set out in subsection (2)? Does not that make him rather suspicious?

Eric Forth: I am a naturally suspicious sort of person. It does not take my hon. Friend to encourage any suspicion in me. That part of the clause gave me some cause for thought. I do not know what the significance of 1 November 2008 is—it may be of some magical ormythical significance in government, in the environmental lobby or whatever. It is something that escapes me.

Christopher Chope: Is it around the time at which, if the present Prime Minister is still in office, he will have been so for longer than Baroness Thatcher was?

Eric Forth: I can hardly bear to contemplate that thought. If the Prime Minister is simply hanging on to office in order to exceed the magnificent achievements of Baroness Thatcher, it would be very sad indeed. We will pass on from that thought.
	Clause 3(7) would, sensibly if ominously allow the Secretary of State to
	"review the target"—
	or, in the case of my amendment, the targets—
	"and, if he considers it appropriate to do so, revise the target."
	Of course it does, but it brings into question the whole benefit, if any, of the target-based approach. I gave the Bill the benefit of the doubt, because I could have tabled an amendment to remove clause 3 completely and I was tempted to do so. Instead, I decided to be, as ever, positive and helpful in my approach and to seek to make the clause more workable, despite my doubts about it. That led to my attempts to recast it on a regional basis. However, when one realises that the Secretary of State may revise the targets and that, indeed, he does not need to designate any at all, one begins to wonder what the Government and the promoter of the Bill have in mind.
	What would happen if the targets were not met? My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned an important target on child poverty that has just been sadly and dramatically missed. What would be the policy response if insufficient numbers of people put little windmills on their roofs to boost the energy input to their home and, by implication, help to save the planet? Would the Government undertake to subsidise the installation of little windmills, or would they provide tax relief on them? I do not know what would happen and we have had no hint on it. Nothing that I have heard so far has explained to me what will induce people to put solar panels or little windmills on their roofs, where—I hope—they would not disturb their neighbours or destroy the visual impact of their community.
	If we were to have a regional approach, which was well defined and set up, properly focused and monitored, and the target were not met, we would have the opportunity on a regional basis to ask where we should go from here. Why is it that the expectation of lots of windmills in East Anglia or lots of solar panels on the Isle of Wight or in the south-west of England has not been met? Why have the ambitious and optimistic targets that we have set not been met? What do we now have to do? Do we have to give people incentives? Do we have to introduce penalties? Do we have to try to shame people?
	There is any number of possible approaches, but at the moment all we seem to have is wishful thinking. We have endless stories about how climate change is the greatest threat to mankind, but that is so nonsensical as to be hardly worth contemplating. I would have thought that terrorism, war, disease, lack of clean water or avian flu are much more immediate threats to mankind than a rather dubious change in the climate in 50 or 100 years' time. That is just my view and I hope that we will have a chance to explore it in much more detail on Third Reading and if we ever reach the Climate Change Bill.

Christopher Chope: It is not clear to me whether my right hon. Friend supports amendments Nos. 30 and 31, which would remove subsections (7) and (8) from clause 3.

Eric Forth: Sadly, I do not, because—as I have tried to explain—I have a jaundiced view of targets and I favour the idea that if a target is set, but turns out to be so wide of the mark that it is useless, it makes sense to give the Secretary of State an escape hatch. If the Secretary of State were honest, he could say, "I have tried this approach. It patently did not work, so I shall not indulge in this pretence or self-delusion any longer." I do not want to force Secretaries of State to have meaningless targets. That is what I am trying to say. From that point of view, perhaps to my hon. Friend's surprise, I accept that these provisions should remain in the Bill. I do not think we should get ourselves so caught up in this frantic frenzy of people falling over one another to say, "I believe in climate change more than you and I am going to do more than you to solve it." It is a problem that we cannot measure, that may or may not happen, and that is so far in the future that it is of little or no relevance to this generation or the next. To start to formulate policies to try to meet—

Mark Lazarowicz: I am somewhat surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. His own party leader has publicly indicated that he is going to install a wind turbine on his house, which I welcome, so I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's line. I suggest that he has a chat with his party leader before next week, if the Bill comes back then, listens to what he has to say on the matter and follows a slightly more constructive approach than the one he is adopting today.

Eric Forth: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's advice that I have discussions with my party leader, but ours is a wonderfully democratic party that believes in the right of individual members to have their own views, to account to their electorate and to participate in debate, which is what I am doing. I believe in the conclusions of their lordships' Economic Affairs Committee. I am trying to paraphrase its report. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has read it; I hope he has. I agree with their lordships, and if I have not exactly reflected the conclusions that they came to, I will try to do better next time when we have a more extensive debate about climate change in the round—I know that Mr. Deputy Speaker would not want me to engage in that now. As for whether I must slavishly follow what my party leader or, indeed, anyone else says, the hon. Gentleman obviously does not yet know me very well. We will become better acquainted as these debates go on. I have my own views on these matters and I am prepared to account to my voters for them and to set them out whenever I have the opportunity to do so.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend accept that by 1 November 2008 the leader of our party, our right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), may be Prime Minister?

Eric Forth: Would that that were so, but I shall not explore that matter any further, because if I did Mr. Deputy Speaker would be on his feet and I shall allow him to keep his seat on this occasion. So I must go on to subsection (8) and follow the point that my hon. Friend made earlier. It is rather comforting and states that if the Secretary of State revises a target,
	"he must publish a statement of that fact together with a copy of the revised target".
	Here again I believe that the regional approach that I am suggesting would enable the Secretary of State to focus much better on the target, its accuracy or otherwise, and whether it was met, nearly met or completely wrong. Almost inevitably, that would allow much more sensible policy conclusions to be drawn than if we were to attempt to do so at a national level.

Christopher Chope: rose—

Eric Forth: I am about to conclude, because I sense that my hon. Friend has a contribution to make and I would not want the discussion of this part of the Bill to run out of time before he does so, but I shall give way.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that subsection (8) does not include any requirement for the Secretary of State to give any reason for revising a target? Does he think that that is a real weakness?

Eric Forth: Yes, it is. It reflects the soft approach that the Bill takes. On reflection, I would have preferred what my hon. Friend has just said. I believe that the Secretary of State should be able to say that the target approach has not worked, but it would be much better if the Secretary of State were obliged to say why. This clause is a mixture of the good and not so good. Targets are worth trying, but my firm view is that they would be much better done on a regional basis rather than a national one. A national basis would conceal far too many variations to make the policy conclusions that might come from targeting of any use at all. I hope that serious thought will be given to my amendments, because otherwise we will be embarking on another useless round of aspirational target setting with very few policy outcomes.

Gregory Barker: Microgeneration is at the heart of the Bill. It is an essential element of a decentralised energy policy, which could provide a substantive part of the answer to the challenges of climate change in the United Kingdom. My party, under the leadership of—[Interruption.] I paused because I was about to mention the Christian name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), which would obviously have been out of order. Under my right hon. Friend's leadership, my colleagues are considering what substantive part we can play in future energy policy.
	We take microgeneration extremely seriously, and it forms an important part of the Bill. However, the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) add nothing to the Bill; they cloud it. I always thought that the Conservative party was sceptical—to say the least—about anything that could be seen as a regional solution. In England we are not a nation of regions, but of counties and cities, and steps towards regional government have been firmly rebutted, so I am surprised that my right hon. Friend vests so much faith in regional solutions. They are costly, bureaucratic, opaque and, given that we have no democratic structures at regional level, undemocratic and unaccountable.
	Regional targets are no good. Industry needs national targets to spark investment, and such a target could include a breakdown of how much each region should do to promote microgeneration.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend accept that my amendments Nos. 30 and 31, which would remove subsections (7) and (8), would be good for industry by introducing a degree of certainty to the clause?

Gregory Barker: The Bill is sufficient as it stands. Amending it at this stage would not be helpful to the central purpose that the overwhelming majority of us support—to pass the Bill. I see nothing in the amendments that is designed to be constructive in achieving that end. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that he had the right to disagree. Of course he has. We are a broad church in the Conservative party.

Michael Fabricant: And tolerant.

Gregory Barker: Indeed, but no one can doubt the new direction that we are charting in putting issues such as climate change at the top of our political agenda. The amendments are not supported by Conservative Front Benchers. We oppose them, and we wholeheartedly support the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: Clause 3 was the subject of much debate in Committee. When developing our views on the need for microgeneration targets, we will consult a wide range of people and organisations as a matter of course. That makes amendment No. 7 superfluous.
	Regions will be able to set their own targets for microgeneration within any national target that we may set, and it would be more appropriate for them to do so, rather than central Government setting them. On those grounds, I oppose amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 16, 18 and 20.
	Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 would remove the provisions that give the Secretary of State the ability to revise any target that may have been set. Given that the microgeneration industry is in its early stages, it is important to have the flexibility to ensure that targets remain realistic but challenging.
	Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 appear to be drafting amendments, for which I find no need, but Government amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38 improve the Bill, and I hope that they have hon. Members' support.
	We support the retention of clause 6 as drafted, without amendment No. 12. The word "appropriate" is deliberately broad, whereas amendment No. 12, tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), might be too prescriptive, as we may wish to consider other things when making such a decision. However, I assure him that when considering whether to use the powers in clause 6, we will, as always, ensure that we do so in a way that is effective and cost-effective, as well as environmentally beneficial.
	In summary, I support amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38, and I oppose amendments Nos. 7, 8 to 10, 12, 16 to 20, 30 and 31.

Christopher Chope: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 30 and 31, which I tabled, and express my disappointment that the Minister feels it necessary to take the power to review a target and, if he considers it appropriate, to revise it. That is about the Government moving the goalposts—to use a different analogy—and the danger is that once the microgeneration industry begins to grow, the Government will change the targets by revising them downwards, or eliminate them altogether.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) says that such targets are needed nationally to give confidence to the industry. Surely the industry would have more confidence if it knew that a cynical Government, who have already changed any number of targets and definitions in their time in office, could not come along and say, "Well, we had this target but we don't think it's right now, so we're going to revise it."
	Of course, as I pointed out in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Government could revise the target under clause 3(8), without the need to give any reason why they wanted to review it or to engage in any consultation on their proposals to do so. That would be a matter for the Secretary of State.
	I am pretty sceptical about all this, as I think is apparent, but if clause 3 means anything, it is designed to try to promote mirogeneration. However, it is hedged around with caveats and exceptions and gives too much power to the Minister. It will enable him not to announce a target until 1 November 2008, and then perhaps to decide that he does not want to do so after all. If he chooses to announce a target, he can revise it without giving any information on why he wishes to do so.
	If, as the Minister says, what he has in mind is that the revision should always be upwards, why did he not say so? Significantly, he omitted to say that. If the Government were saying, "We'd like to revise targets to make them more demanding, but we'll never revise them just because it's apparent that we can't meet our objectives," I would have a little more confidence. However, the Minister does not want to do that, because the Government have set targets just as the old Soviet empire used to set lots of targets—targets that are abandoned as soon as the date at which the measurement should take place approaches.
	I am sure that many people throughout the country realise that targets are just a device used by the Government, and have no point unless sanctions can be imposed for failing to reach them, and no discretion is left to the Government to revise them to suit their own objectives. I will not dwell on what we have referred to briefly, but this week's news that the child poverty reduction target has not been met is a supreme example of how worthless targets are. The Government are not prepared to accept that there are now 300,000 more children living in poverty, and they are not explaining why the target has not been met, or apologising. That just shows the worthlessness of such targets.
	If we are going to have targets, they should be robust ones. The Minister, or the Secretary of State, should be forced to stick to them. That would be no big deal, because if they miss them there is no sanction—only the sanction of being held up to ridicule in the court of public opinion. I suppose one could say that has happened with the failure to achieve a reduction in child poverty, which we have heard about this week.
	If the Secretary of State is going to revise a target, why should he not give reasons for revising it? I cannot understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle does not think that that is a reasonable safeguard or requirement. I must leave him to make his own points about that. However, I agree with him in his suspicion about the whole regional agenda.

Eric Forth: Before my hon. Friend embarks on this part of his analysis, may I point out that I am fairly certain that the Conservative party has just been reorganised on a regional basis? I hope that the chairman of the party does not read the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) about that being bureaucratic, costly and useless. If that happens, my hon. Friend will be in a bit of trouble, and I will be marching in lockstep with the chairman of the party.

Christopher Chope: I hope that our party has not been reorganised on a regional basis. My understanding is that although people called regional directors have been appointed, they are not responsible for areas coterminous with—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Fascinating though this subject may be to detached observers, I honestly do not think that it can be brought within the framework of the amendments that we are dealing with.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that is right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the Government's regional agenda, my right hon. Friend is suggesting the incorporation of regional targets. Therefore, he is effectively referring to the seven Government regions in England.

Eric Forth: I carefully avoided referring to the Government regions; I do not think that I made any reference to them in my amendment or my remarks. I was trying to suggest that in the context of climate, windmills and all the other things, a breakdown by region—using regions that might be completely different from Government regions—would be more sensible. I hope that I avoided any suggestion that I was picking up the Government's regional structure and seeking to use that; I was not.

Christopher Chope: In that case, I shall criticise my right hon. Friend for tabling amendments that might result in unintended consequences. As soon as we refer in legislation to regions—particularly given the Government's attitude to regions and the Deputy Prime Minister's promotion of them even when they have been rejected by regional referendums—that will be used to bolster the regional agenda. The next development will be the idea that in order to police the regional targets, or even determine what they should be, it we need an elected regional assembly of people who are accountable to the region. One can imagine just such an argument developing. That is why I am instinctively against such a provision.
	My right hon. Friend and I were members of a Government who naively thought that devolving some Government offices to the regions would bring the administration of government closer to the people, without setting up regions within the context of the European Union regions. I am afraid that however well intentioned that proposal was, it has resulted in a regional culture developing. My constituency is right on the border between one region and another, and is closer to the London region than to the centre of the south-west region, let alone the south-east region, and we feel strongly there that regionalism and all that it involves is bad news rather than good news. That is my concern about the regional targets, although I accept that my right hon. Friend says that regions could be defined in another way. I suppose that he has in mind an area larger than an individual local authority area.

Eric Forth: I confirm that I have in mind East Anglia, for example, or the south-west: in other words, large geographic—or, dare I say it, climatic—regions in which the distinctions that I was suggesting would make sense. I am avoiding Government administrative regions, and even worse, European regions, and am trying to avoid the constraints of even local government boundaries. I am thinking more of the sort of regions that would make sense in the context of the Bill and its objectives.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying that. During his clarification, he referred to the south-west, which is a region. Those of us who live in the south-west and are concerned about regionalism are at pains to point out that the most westerly part of the south-west, far from being the south-west region, is the west country. That is how true people from the west country refer to their area. If he had referred to the west country rather than the south-west, I would have had a little more confidence in his approach to regionalism.

Eric Forth: In that case, may I recant and move an amendment to what I said, to delete "the south-west" and insert "the west country"?

Christopher Chope: I am sure that my constituents will forgive my right hon. Friend for having referred inadvertently to the south-west in that context. If one is based in central southern England—as you will know from your geography, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is where Christchurch is located—it is hard to regard it as being the south-west. That is the problem with the regional concept that my right hon. Friend has introduced with his amendments.
	The substance of our debate is about microgeneration and the targets for it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, I believe that if we are to have targets for microgeneration, it is probably better to do that on a national basis, and ideally on a United Kingdom basis—but I understand that that is not possible. Then we could work back from there.
	I do not wish to detain the House much longer. All I really want to do is put on record my high degree of scepticism about clause 3: the Government have any number of let-out provisions. If my amendments Nos. 30 and 31 were agreed and subsections (7) and (8) were deleted, that would add significantly to the ability of the clause to achieve what is meant to be the avowed objective of the Bill—to encourage microgeneration and encourage people to invest in it. People are not going to invest in microgeneration if they can see that the whole concept could be disregarded by the Government should they so wish, although in the present climate of opinion it seems like a good thing.
	I have no doubt about the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to microgeneration, and in that respect he leads by example. However, he does so without the need for any targets. He is not waiting until 1 November 2008 to act, and there is no reason why anyone else who wants to engage in microgeneration needs to wait until then. I strongly advise people who are thinking of investing in microgeneration equipment to go into the marketplace and seek it, irrespective of any targets—whether national or regional—laid down by the Government. If microgeneration is a good thing and people are prepared to invest in it, we should let that happen, but we should not pretend that clause 3 will make any significant difference.

Eric Forth: I was of course disappointed, although not surprised, by the Minister's reaction, which illustrates the problem that we have with our procedure to which the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), referred a short while ago. It is rather assumed that amendments made in Committee in a friendly way when people all agree with each other are okay, but that if people have the gall to table amendments on Report, it is somehow outrageous or unacceptable. That is a rather sad comment on the parliamentary process.
	The Minister said two interesting things, one of which was encouraging and another that was rather intriguing. He might regret giving the usual consultation undertaking. He said that the Government will consult before they set the targets, but there would be a problem if the responses received from those who were lucky enough to be consulted were somewhat at odds with the Government's intentions. It is not unknown for political parties to undertake consultation. If the answer to the consultation is not what was expected, the party can try to go off in a different direction, although that would be very rash. I remain to be convinced that the consultation exercise will be in any way meaningful, and it remains to be seen with whom there will be consultation.
	I was intrigued that the Minister said—I tried to write it down, but I am sure that he will correct me if I have got it wrong—that we should not worry about the regional point because the regions will be able to set their targets within any national targets. That does not make sense. How could we ensure that the regional targets that were set would sum to a national target? If there was a difference, how would we explain and deal with it? The proposal would be a rather odd way of going about things. After the Government have undertaken their consultation process with people as yet unidentified, presumably they will come forward with simply a national target for microgeneration.
	I suppose that we would be considering the government regions—what else could they be—to which the Government seem still to cling. I am happy to say that we still oppose the regional bodies—that is one of the things that we have not yet changed. Each region would set its own target, but what would happen if the sum of the regional targets fell far short of the Government's national target, or, even more surprisingly, exceeded it? How would the regional targets fit into the subsequent monitoring of the national target? If there was a shortfall, or—surprise, surprise—the national target was exceeded, what would be the policy outcome for the regions in which the targets had been set?
	We all look forward with great anticipation to finding out how the mechanism will work. I assume that the Minister was reading from a brief when he made his intriguing comment. If not, when he goes to his officials and says triumphantly, "Now look, I want you to set about erecting the procedures and mechanisms whereby this will happen," they will all have a merry time doing it. I await the outcome with some interest.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend envisage the Government introducing the regional breakdown of a national target in their regional planning guidance?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, and I am sure that the Minister is as well. Our old friend guidance is something that any Minister can reach for with a sigh of relief and in a relatively unconstrained way. Guidance does not require any parliamentary process. Unlike primary or delegated legislation, it can be issued at the whim and fiat of the Minister. It is then increasingly held to have the force of law.
	My hon. Friend is correct that it is entirely possible that guidance could be issued to the regions on how they might go about setting the targets that the Minister said they will be allowed or, indeed, encouraged to do. However, that still does not get around the problem of the regions' targets not summing up to the national target that the Government set. Guidance would not solve that unless there is an iterative process between the Government at a national level and the regions as to how, on the one hand, they allow the regions to set their own targets and, on the other, they square it with the national targets. We do not know whether that is the case, however, because we have not heard from the Minister. Sadly, these debates are not structured in that way. We will not hear from him unless he wants to intervene, and there is no sign that he does because he has not thought about any of this.
	I do not know whether my hon. Friend, with his extensive ministerial experience, finds that convincing, but it is the only explanation that I can offer to get around the problem that the Minister has set for himself and his officials. I am not sure whether it would work.

Christopher Chope: I am becoming persuaded of my right hon. Friend's opinion on the matter. If the regions do a bottom-up exercise, the totality of what they consider to be their targets could become the national target. I think that is the point that he had in mind when referring to regional targets.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was indeed my approach, but the Minister has reversed all that. I am trying to study the Minister's body language, but he is remaining sphinx-like. He is probably regretting what he said and wondering desperately how it is all to be done. The truth is that we are completely in the dark. I laid all my cards on the table in my usual open, helpful and co-operative way, seeking to add to the lustre of the Bill, but, rather disappointingly, that has been rejected by, well, virtually everybody. However, in rejecting my helpful and co-operative suggestions, the Minister came up with his policy, which he did either on the hoof or because it was offered to him by his officials as something that would sound reasonably emollient and fit in with the spirit of the Bill. My suspicion now, however, is that he has given himself a real difficulty.
	When we conclude this part of the Bill in just two minutes' time, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) will tell us when he is going to bring it back to the House. That will give us all time to reconsider the problem and, if it is in order, to table further amendments. The Minister might table an amendment which tells us how he proposes to honour his undertaking.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and I are suspicious of the regional agenda. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been more logical for the Minister to say that the national targets will be broken down at local government level, especially if the Bill refers to lots of individual local authorities?

Eric Forth: There may be an anomaly there as well, but we do not know whether that is the case. We are now caught in a trap between the certainty of the national target, which is in the Bill—the Minister said that he wants to keep it, so that is pretty much that—his hint about the possible involvement of the regions, about which we know no more, and the impact of new clause 4, which gives an unequivocal position in the mechanism for local authorities at all sorts of different levels. I hope that the Bill's promoter is as worried about that as he should be, although he does not look worried; he looks happy, because we have made splendid progress on his Bill.

Christopher Chope: How does my right hon. Friend think that the possible inclusion of the Greater London authority fits in?

Eric Forth: Frankly, that is for the Minister to say. He should come back to the House, perhaps when we next consider the Bill, with an amendment that sets out how he will honour his new commitment—
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 17 March.

Remaining Private Members' Bills
	 — 
	FIREWORKS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 12 May.

HARBOURS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 12 May.

ENERGY BILL

Order for Second reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 12 May.

BREAST CANCER BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 17 March.

CRIME PREVENTION AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.

DOMICILIARY OXYGEN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Watson.]

Sandra Gidley: I welcome an early opportunity to highlight problems with the new contract for delivering oxygen to people's homes, which was the subject of heated debated in Health questions. It is nice to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), but I regret that he does not have direct knowledge of the subject or responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the new service which the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) described, perhaps inadvertently, as a shambles. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary is well briefed.
	It is worth setting out the background to the problem. For many years, community pharmacists supplied oxygen cylinders, and that service was supplemented by other companies supplying oxygen concentrators. In a response to a parliamentary question that I tabled, the Minister of State said:
	"For many years, patient organisations have sought improvements in the domiciliary oxygen service, which has seen little change over the past 50 years."—[Official Report, 27 February 2006; Vol. 443, c. 435W.]
	That is not exactly inaccurate, but the bulk of those concerns centred on the old-fashioned nature of the equipment, rather than on the suppliers.
	The Department asked the Royal College of Physicians to lead a multi-disciplinary working group in a review of the clinical assessment and prescribing of oxygen in the home. That group reported in 1999. I have been unable to clarify the composition of the group, so I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary would do so, as it has been suggested that there was not a proper consultation, which prevented full consideration of the benefits of retaining a supply from pharmacies. In 2003, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who then had ministerial responsibility for pharmacies, stated in a written answer:
	"Although the working party's terms of reference precluded making specific recommendations about alterations in service provision, a number of the guidelines had implications for the content of the existing domiciliary oxygen service and for the way in which the service is delivered."—[Official Report, 12 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 1075W.]
	He then mentioned that as a result of the exercise, a review of the domiciliary oxygen service had taken place and he would announce the results. It may have been at this stage that the Department of Health issued a questionnaire. A joint response by the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee and the National Pharmaceutical Association made a strong case for cylinder oxygen to continue to be supplied by community pharmacies and proposed a beefed-up monitoring role.
	The then Minister announced that the new model would transfer responsibility for ordering oxygen for long-term oxygen therapy from GPs to specialist consultants in hospital. The idea was that this was a specialist service and that many patients would benefit from having oxygen available in different forms. GPs could continue to prescribe oxygen for patients who required relatively small amounts. So far, so good. However, he went on to say that specialist contractors would provide the service, and that a specification for the provision of the service would be drawn up. He anticipated that the new service would be fully operational early in 2005.
	Not everybody was happy. The pharmaceutical services negotiating committee lodged an official protest with the Department of Health that the domiciliary oxygen service was to be swept aside and replaced by a secondary-based system. The main strands of the complaint were that it had been launched without proper consultation and put at risk the provision of oxygen therapy to patients. Those proved to be sound words.
	However, when the details of the invitation to tender were announced, it was clear that pharmacy was out of the picture. Despite ministerial protestations to the contrary, because the Government required a one-supplier-fits-all approach, and pharmacy expertise did not extend to fitting the concentrators, pharmacy was effectively excluded.
	Initially, the service was supposed to start on 1 October 2005. That deadline was not achieved because of legal action by one of the potential suppliers. Throughout this period, pharmacy contractors remained keen to help, and despite the fact that pharmacies had already begun to run down the stocks and infrastructure, such as the vans and storage equipment, they all did what they could to keep the service going. The PSNC tells me that efforts were made to find ways of transferring pharmacies' valuable knowledge about patients to the new suppliers, but the Department of Health and the primary care trusts believed that they did not need that help.
	As February 2006 approached, some patients were transferred to a concentrator service but, as the Minister acknowledged in health questions on Tuesday, that was only about half the patients who were receiving oxygen. What she did not acknowledge was that on 1 February there were effectively 30,000 patients without an oxygen service. Those had been relying on the local pharmacy network to supply their oxygen.
	Prior to 1 February it was clearly understood by pharmacy contractors that they would not be able to supply oxygen after 1 February other than on a pre-dated prescription, so I was somewhat surprised to read in The Times a letter from the Minister with responsibility for public health stating:
	"The service was always planned to be phased over a six month transition period and not suddenly switched".
	Such assertions have been repeated by the Minister with responsibility for pharmacy, and they are misleading. That was not the impression given by the NHS in the run-up to the 1 February deadline. If the Minister disbelieves me, I refer him to the primary care contracting NHS website.
	In 2005 some frequently asked questions were produced. One was how suppliers would receive their orders. Under the old system, GPs wrote a prescription, called an FP 10, and pharmacists supplied against that. The answer is interesting. It clearly states that doctors would have to use the home oxygen order form—HOOF—and submit it directly to the oxygen service provider. It continues categorically:
	"The FP 10 will no longer be used for prescribing oxygen, as it is not a prescribable medicine".
	As there was no clear cut-off point, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain what the Minister meant when she stated in her letter that the service was to be "phased in", and what phasing was planned for after 1 February. Any phasing should have taken place before that date, when a complete switch-over was planned.
	What happened? Within a few days of 1 February, I received complaints from a local hospital doctor that he was unable to discharge patients into the community because of difficulties in obtaining oxygen. He also claimed that many doctors had raised concerns about the transfer to the new system. In addition, I received calls from pharmacists highlighting the long delays experienced by patients receiving oxygen from the new suppliers. Many GPs did not transfer patients as anticipated, and it would be helpful if the Minister were to explain how that process was monitored during the lead-up to 1 February.
	Much of the information supplied by GPs was inaccurate or incomplete, which compounded the demand on the inadequate resources of the new suppliers. Air Products, which is one of the new suppliers, claims that 80 per cent. of the HOOF forms that it received had been filled in incorrectly. It would be useful to know what guidance was issued to GPs on the changes and the extra information required on the new forms.
	The four main suppliers had insufficient telephone line capacity, and it is interesting that they passed the buck to GPs and patients and blamed them for contacting helplines with general queries about future supply orders. In many parts of the country, the February transfer can only be described as "chaotic". One supplier, Allied Respiratory, was moved to issue a press release stating:
	"DoH and NHS had discussed the transitional arrangements, and it had always been anticipated that a gradual change would take place, phasing the transfer of existing cylinder patients from their current suppliers"—
	namely pharmacies—"to the new suppliers", but that did not happen. Instead supply from the existing network ceased abruptly, leaving patients with no choice other than to pursue the new suppliers for their oxygen from 1 Feb 2006. As I have said, that situation involved some 30,000 people.
	It seems clear that the much quoted "phased transfer" was supposed to occur before 1 February and that the scheme was badly managed by the NHS. The original intention was to pass regulations to prevent doctors from using prescription forms after 1 February, which would effectively have curtailed supply from community pharmacies. We have to be hugely thankful for yet   another piece of Department of Health mismanagement, which meant that those regulations were never actually passed. That effectively threw the Government a lifeline, because GPs continued to prescribe as they always have done and pharmacists continued to supply and bail out the failing service. Despite the fact that many pharmacies had run down their stocks of oxygen, they rose to the occasion, and many were happy to do so, because they did not want to let down the many patients with whom they had formed close relationships.
	That action serves to underscore the importance, resilience and flexibility of the pharmacy network and its commitment to patient care, but the Government clearly fail to appreciate that point. A letter to me from Lord Warner dated 27 April 2005 stated:
	"As you will appreciate more is required of the service providers under the new service contract than the delivery and collection of oxygen cylinders".
	That statement displays a complete lack of understanding of the role of pharmacists, who, when they delivered oxygen, were on hand to advise on and monitor use. Furthermore, they would often deliver medicines and advise on their usage at the same visit. In fact, that arrangement provided a fully integrated medicines management approach delivered into the heart of the community and reaching some of those in society with the poorest health, which is just the sort of thing that the Government claim they want to see much more of in their latest White Paper.
	What of the future? Local arrangements are being implemented to sort out the problem in the short term. I pay tribute to the local practitioner committee in Hampshire and Isle of the Wight, which has been proactive and negotiated arrangements with the primary care trust to ensure that patients receive supplies and that pharmacists are not left out of pocket for helping out.
	We must ask ourselves whether it is right to keep the service in the hands of three large suppliers—the number has decreased from four to three because of a takeover—which are likely to struggle with the peaks and troughs of demand. In the past, if a local pharmacist could not supply oxygen, there was usually one not very far away who could step into the breach very quickly. In an emergency, most pharmacists were keen to supply within an hour. The current target is four hours, which is too long for some people to wait for oxygen, and it has been missed in the first month of the introduction of the new contract. There have been reports of people having to wait until the next day for what has been deemed an emergency supply of oxygen. That never happened with pharmacies, because of their individual professional responsibility and commitment to patient care.
	On Tuesday, I was disappointed when the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree seemed to suggest that because only half of the pharmacy network supplied oxygen, the system was not good enough. In reality, in any local neighbourhood, everybody knew where the oxygen was and worked together to ensure that the patients received a decent supply. Again, there has been a lack of understanding about the system's flexibility and the way in which it worked on the ground.
	The Government say much about patient choice and it is a shame that that commitment did not extend to oxygen supply. I therefore read with some interest in Chemist and Druggist about their new campaign for choice in oxygen, which pharmacy trade bodies, multiple wholesalers and individual contractors back. I do not believe that they have got around to asking patients yet, but my feedback and postbag lead me to believe that they would also support it. The National Pharmaceutical Association suggested that the service could be reintroduced as a beefed-up, enhanced service. I hope that the Government will consider that proposal.
	When the Under-Secretary responds, I hope that he will be open and candid about the faults and problems that have arisen. Warm words about those who have bailed out the system are not enough. Patients and their relatives have experienced stress, and deaths have been attributed to the failure of the service during the handover. Only an apology will be sufficient.

Liam Byrne: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on securing the debate. She is well qualified to speak about the matter. I thank her for her welcome and assure her that I shall pass on her comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
	I do not trust The Guardian for much but I relied on it for the hon. Lady's biography. I noted that she spent a long career as a pharmacist, starting in 1979, and that she became a pharmacy manager, a locum pharmacist, and a pharmacy manager with Safeway and then with Tesco. I therefore appreciate that I am up against someone who understands the existing system inside out.
	On 1 February, we introduced new arrangements for the supply of oxygen to patients at home through a contract with regionally based suppliers. We did not make those changes for their own sake but because of the benefits that we believed that a new way of doing things could have for patients and health-care professionals alike. They want changes to a service that has remained much the same for 60 years.
	Some of the ambitions of the new contract are to replace fragmented delivery and, most important, the limited choice of oxygen equipment available to patients. Again, that is not some sort of fanciful notion. We have done it because we want to support developments in best clinical practice and other changes in the way in which we deliver health care to patients, especially those with long-term conditions. We also wanted to give patients and clinical staff the opportunity to shape a contract themselves. That has been a key driver in ensuring that NHS patients have access to the most modern equipment available. The change is therefore about the future of the service.
	As the hon. Lady knows, some of the modern equipment that will be available in the not-too-distant future could change many patients' lives immeasurably for the better, through, for example, devices that resemble a laptop, take oxygen from the ambient environment and channel it to the individual. That also applies to new ways of rendering oxygen equipment and therapy far more portable. Those services can improve quality of life, thus allowing those who can to continue to attend school or work, go on holiday or live life as they see fit.
	Improvements in patient care and choice have driven the changes. Patients will no longer have to rely on repeat prescriptions or visiting their GP to obtain oxygen at home. Hospital staff may now order oxygen from suppliers for delivery direct to the patient's home. We believe that health-care professionals can now concentrate on the patient's clinical needs, leaving it to the supplier's expertise to determine the equipment that will best meet their patients' individual needs.
	Hon. Members' attention was drawn to the implementation of the contract on Tuesday. Let me begin with some history.In June 2003, the Department announced plans to modernise the home oxygen service. In preparation for that modernisation, it spent about a year developing a service specification with people whose input was important, not least patient representatives, clinicians, experts in the safe use of oxygen systems, and representatives from the industry, in order to improve the care of patients with respiratory and other conditions. This included close working with the British Thoracic Society, which updated clinical best practice guidelines on oxygen therapy. The contract requirements support and reflect those guidelines. Importantly, the service specification also set out measures that would structure the implementation of the changes in two phases.
	Information on the competitive tendering requirements and the tender documents were made widely available, including to pharmacy businesses. The market structure of the pharmacy business in this country means that companies such as Safeway and Tesco are heavily involved in it. Some very big organisations are involved; indeed, they are more than big enough to enter into regional contracts, if that is what interests them. In fact, one pharmacy company did put in a bid, although it was unsuccessful. Under the public service procurement rules, regional contracts were awarded to four suppliers, each of which is required to meet all the home oxygen needs of all patients in the region in which they hold a contract.
	The service specification highlighted the number of players who needed to be involved in planning and managing the changes. This involved primary care trusts leading implementation locally, in discussion with GPs, pharmacists, hospital trusts, new suppliers and outgoing contractors. Perhaps more importantly, those discussions also involved people representing patients using the service. The PCTs worked hard with GPs and new suppliers to check patient data during the first phase, including securing consent for transfer of personal patient information, to ensure that new suppliers had details of patients receiving this service. Most importantly, we identified many patients who were highly dependent on oxygen therapy, to prioritise their early transfer to the new system. As my right hon. Friend said on Tuesday, more than 30,000 patients using the oxygen concentrator service transferred to new suppliers before 1 February 2006.
	The second stage of the transition plan started on 1 February with the intention of managing the transfer of the remaining patients over a six-month period to August 2006. Stage one went without a hitch. In stage two, however, suppliers experienced a very high volume of orders in the first few days of February, and many of the new order forms did not include sufficient information to support delivery of the required service. The need carefully to check these resulted in time being spent prioritising orders for immediate or emergency needs and delivering supplies to new patients.

Sandra Gidley: It surprises me that alarm bells did not immediately ring at that point, with 30,000 patients having switched over. The Minister has mentioned a transition period. He must acknowledge, however, that if the system had gone according to plan there would have been no let-out clause, because GPs would have been unable to prescribe oxygen in a form that pharmacists could supply. That means that, as of 1 February, the system transferred completely to the new suppliers. I am not quite sure where the idea that there has been a transition period comes from, because it has certainly not been the perception of anyone who works in the industry.

Liam Byrne: I understand from the officials with whom I spoke this morning that a great deal of work went into communicating with GPs and PCTs before the switchover. However, a number of other issues complicated the transition, including the high volume of orders sent to suppliers on the same day, even when patients still had supplies of oxygen at home. Also, a very large number of patients contacted suppliers with queries about the new service. All those factors account for some of the delays in receiving and delivering orders for oxygen.
	Action was quickly taken to address the problems. I want to pay tribute here to the tremendous response from the community pharmacists—these are not mere warm words—many of whom will have been the hon. Lady's former colleagues. The part played by many pharmacists in coming forward to ensure that patients' needs came first was magnificent. Both the Department of Health and the NHS greatly appreciate their professionalism and commitment to patient care, which they have displayed in spades over the past few weeks.
	We identified the transition issues very quickly and took action to return to plans for a phased transfer. Our key message is that the existing cylinder service should continue to be run through pharmacies to support the managed transfer of patients to new suppliers. GPs and their patients have been advised to use prescriptions in the usual way until they have a date on which a patient will transfer to a new supplier.
	Oxygen cylinder suppliers are restocking pharmacies quickly, but as we continue to monitor the service we will reserve the right to take any further action. We are discussing with all cylinder suppliers how best to maintain supplies. New suppliers have taken on resources to prioritise orders and help maintain their delivery schedules.
	Implicit in what the hon. Lady said were some questions about pharmacy. She mentioned that my right hon. Friend had said that only 55 per cent. of pharmacies provided cylinder service. As she will know, under the new contract many pharmacists want to expand different parts of their business. Interestingly, a limited number of bids were submitted by what are very big suppliers. The new White Paper sets out a wide range of ambitions for community pharmacists, and during the public consultation in which I participated when drawing up the White Paper we were repeatedly struck by the praise that the public had for community pharmacists. People often said that they would rather go to a community pharmacist for advice because they did not want to trouble a doctor. Many pharmacists recognise that, and feel that it provides exciting opportunities for the future—perhaps more exciting than supplying oxygen therapy.
	A number of specific pharmacy concerns have arisen, not just in the House but in the wider world. There has been concern about lost cylinders, for instance, and about financial costs falling on pharmacists when cylinders supplied to them go missing. We know that the issue must be tackled, and we have already facilitated discussions between pharmacy representatives and gas suppliers. That dialogue will continue, with the aim of achieving a resolution as quickly as possible.
	There have also been concerns about redundant equipment. We have been discussing with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee plans for the payment of a decommissioning fee to pharmacists who have purchased headsets or regulators for use by patients supplied with cylinder oxygen. I understand from officials that those discussions are nearing completion.
	I was glad that the hon. Lady mentioned the campaign of Chemist and Druggist, not a magazine that I have had much opportunity to read but one that is, I am sure, read regularly in the hon. Lady's household. The campaign claims that the patient's right to choose has somehow been reduced. We agree that many pharmacists have excellent relationships with patients using the cylinder service, but this is not about suppliers; it is about how we give patients far greater choice, and the chance to take advantage of significant technological advances that have resulted in much better and more modern equipment.

Sandra Gidley: Will the Minister at least admit that the provision of choice is not exclusively linked to the supplier, and that that choice could have been extended if pharmacy contractors had been kept in the loop and incorporated in the system?

Liam Byrne: With only 55 per cent. of pharmacists supplying the service, there has been a degree of fragmentation in the industry. The question chewed over by the advisory groups that considered the service specification in the first instance, which included patient representatives, is "How can we best secure a wide diversity of modern equipment for patients as quickly as possible?" That will inevitably involve substantial infrastructure and significant research and development. It may well involve global operations so that best practice can be sourced from any part of the world. The question for us is how to ensure that there is a rapid feed-through of modern technology to enable patients to lead the lives that they want to lead. That is why the service specification ended up in its present form. It was drawn up not on the basis of a whim, but on the basis of wide consultation, not least with patients.
	In conclusion, we believe that the new contract will help to deliver an improved oxygen therapy service to patients at home. We value the important contribution that pharmacists have made, and continue to make, in supporting the transition to the new arrangements. I appreciate that not all pharmacists will want or need to be involved over the coming months; none the less, we will work with them to help manage the changes. Indeed, doing so is an essential part of updating plans to manage the transition.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.